Antony Dovgal wrote:
Hello Sebastian.
Hello Antony,
What's the status of this?
Do you have anything working?
back in February/March when I first posted about this, I discussed this
with Marcus. The conclusion was that we wanted to rewrite run-tests.php
based on the Iterator approach I
On 6/5/07, Antony Dovgal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well SPL should not be allowed to be disabled anyways, imho.
I agree, but that's out of the topic.
Well, as we may require for the tests suite, and it looks like a non
sense to be able to disable part of it, it is the right time to fix
solve
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 05.06.2007 12:22, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Antony Dovgal wrote:
On 05.06.2007 11:25, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Antony Dovgal wrote:
What's the status of this?
Do you have anything working?
back in February/March when I
I'd like to say something involving smoke and carcass but that'll bite me later
so.. :)
I'm all for moving the useful stuff to Zend where it belongs.
But I'm totally against making SPL another exception to the rule.
Along with ext/date and ext/standard that is. Extension is an extension.
It's
Pierre wrote:
It should not be possible to disable it. Or even better, we should
move what we consider as core from SPL to Zend.
Amen.
regards,
Lukas
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 05.06.2007 12:43, Derick Rethans wrote:
Require SPL for a test suite?
Doesn't seem to be good idea..
Well SPL should not be allowed to be disabled anyways, imho.
I agree, but that's out of the topic.
Then what is the issue with using this in the tests suite?
@tony2001 I know that
Hello Sebastian.
What's the status of this?
Do you have anything working?
On 27.02.2007 13:23, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Hi,
I invested about half an hour this morning to refactor bench.php. It now
starts a new PHP process for each benchmark and uses microtime(true) and
Hi,
I invested about half an hour this morning to refactor bench.php. It now
starts a new PHP process for each benchmark and uses microtime(true) and
memory_get_peak_usage() to measure benchmark data.
Have a look at
- http://phpfi.com/208939
This is the main script.
-
On 02/27/2007 01:23 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Here is an example output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] benchmark % php run.php
Benchmark Time Peak Memory Usage
ackermann 3.067452 715080
mandel 2.242472 127840
mandel2 2.185040 123448
Antony Dovgal wrote:
I like it. Please continue.
Okay, great. Now: where should I put it? I think the current approach of
having bench.php duplicated in each branch of the Zend Engine is sub-
optimal. Maybe we could create a new top-level CVS module for this?
--
Sebastian Bergmann
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Have a look at
I uploaded a snapshot of what I have now (I added fallbacks for missing
functionality in PHP 4.4 and PHP 5.0 and the rest of the benchmarks) to
http://static.phpunit.de/benchmark.tbz2.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
On 02/27/2007 02:42 PM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Antony Dovgal wrote:
I like it. Please continue.
Okay, great. Now: where should I put it? I think the current approach of
having bench.php duplicated in each branch of the Zend Engine is sub-
optimal. Maybe we could create a new top-level
Hello Antony,
QA sounds fine. Top-level is also fine as we have no real mathing place.
When we offer it through QA we might aswell use qw-web as the cvs module
but a seperate one sounds better.
best regards
marcus
Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 5:58:41 PM, you wrote:
On 02/27/2007 02:42 PM,
Hello Sebastian,
looks pretty fine. Only you don't need fallbacks right now. Simply add a
check for PHP = 5.2.0 since you are using Iterators and I don't see any
sense in testing 5.0 or 5.1. You could further more make the run script
operate a bit like run-tests.php and have the PHP executable
On 02/27/2007 11:48 PM, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Antony,
QA sounds fine. Top-level is also fine as we have no real mathing place.
I meant using qa.php.net for releases, I don't care where exactly it lives in
our CVS.
When we offer it through QA we might aswell use qw-web as the cvs
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Only you don't need fallbacks right now. Simply add a check for
PHP = 5.2.0 since you are using Iterators and I don't see any sense
in testing 5.0 or 5.1.
Already did that yesterday.
You could further more make the run script operate a bit like
run-tests.php and have
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
I uploaded a snapshot of what I have now (I added fallbacks for missing
functionality in PHP 4.4 and PHP 5.0 and the rest of the benchmarks) to
http://static.phpunit.de/benchmark.tbz2.
I updated the snapshot. This is what the output looks like now:
Benchmark
17 matches
Mail list logo
