Hello,
On 10/23/06, Richard Quadling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23/10/06, Derick Rethans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, I see no point in pushing this responsibility into the userland,
> > > > especially since its a BC break appearently.
> > >
> > > There is no BC break:
> >
> > I meant, there would be a BC break if this feature gets dropped, which is
the
> > point of the message, right?
>
> Yeah, but there is no point in calling mktime() without arguments as you
> can use time() doing the same. It's just a friendly hint that you're
> wasting CPU cycles. It's an E_STRICT message for ****s sake.
>
In a simple test, 100000 calls to time() took 0.055 seconds and
mktime() took 3.2 seconds.
Nearly 60 times faster to use time().
Didn't realise that.
If you read the other replies to your initial question (which was
wrong :), you will realize another thing, this is easily fixable with
minimum effort and impact:
http://pecl.php.net/~pierre/remove_mktime_strict.txt
No visible speed difference
.
--Pierre
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
