On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 01:04 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Stas Malyshev
> wrote:
>
> >> But I strongly believe in a threaded base solution for windows. That's
> >> the only way to get anywhere close to the performance we can see on
> >> other platforms (read: posi
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Though, of course, maybe I'm wrong - what would you suggest is the problem
> then? I saw similar slowdowns on 1-process benchmarks as on multi-process
> server benchmarks - so I have hard time believing it has anything to do with
> threading
Hi!
This delta has very little impact on real world apps except those
doing exclusively such ops.
The benchmarks I did suggest otherwise. Real world apps do huge number
of file ops like file_exists(). And while many apps aggressively cache
DB calls and such, filesystem calls are still there.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> The filesystem issues are mostly due to what we do in TS mode, way too
>> much pointless operations, even if the real cache helps a little bit
>> here (take this comment with a bit of salt: as in delta with the cache
>> between TS and
Hi!
The filesystem issues are mostly due to what we do in TS mode, way too
much pointless operations, even if the real cache helps a little bit
here (take this comment with a bit of salt: as in delta with the cache
between TS and NTS).
What we do in TS mode with filesystem that could explain t
Hi Pierre:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 08:43:40PM +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> It does not matter what is the latest VC version. What matters is that
> VC6 is a dead cow and we won't support it anymore, even for the
> current stable, 5.3. And to be honest I don't really care about
> Apache.org's use
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>> But I strongly believe in a threaded base solution for windows. That's
>> the only way to get anywhere close to the performance we can see on
>> other platforms (read: posix).
>
> My experience is that performance differnces between Window
Hi!
But I strongly believe in a threaded base solution for windows. That's
the only way to get anywhere close to the performance we can see on
other platforms (read: posix).
My experience is that performance differnces between Windows and Linux
has very little to do with server model, but muc
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 1/31/2011 2:04 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Which I think we agree with, but you answer is a non sequitur, if you are
>>> defining the 'next right solution', why dep
On 1/31/2011 2:04 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>
>> Which I think we agree with, but you answer is a non sequitur, if you are
>> defining the 'next right solution', why deploy the n-1 build environment?
>
> I did not refer to the next rig
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> Which I think we agree with, but you answer is a non sequitur, if you are
> defining the 'next right solution', why deploy the n-1 build environment?
I did not refer to the next right solution but the current and actual
right solution
On 1/31/2011 1:43 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 1/30/2011 5:02 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks like all of these are reproducible only on vc6 build and all have
>>> same issues
>>> with division and rounding, and all not rep
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:28 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 10:36 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> On 1/30/11 8:30 PM, Daniel Convissor wrote:
>>>
>>> That's not an option for the large number of people who want to run PHP
>>> under Apache, let alone folks who don't have VC9 tools. The
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 5:02 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>
>> It looks like all of these are reproducible only on vc6 build and all have
>> same issues
>> with division and rounding, and all not reproducible on vc9 - which makes me
>> thing it's
>
On 1/31/2011 5:23 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>> Aren't Apache VC9 builds readily available these days?
>>
>> http://www.apachelounge.com/download/
>
> I forgot to mention it here again. These builds are not officially
> supported by
On 1/30/2011 10:36 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 1/30/11 8:30 PM, Daniel Convissor wrote:
>>
>> That's not an option for the large number of people who want to run PHP
>> under Apache, let alone folks who don't have VC9 tools. The diff() code
>> is mauling data types in undesirable, though easily
On 1/30/2011 5:02 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
> It looks like all of these are reproducible only on vc6 build and all have
> same issues
> with division and rounding, and all not reproducible on vc9 - which makes me
> thing it's
> some vc6 problem. Maybe the one Gustavo identified, or something l
hi,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Aren't Apache VC9 builds readily available these days?
>
> http://www.apachelounge.com/download/
I forgot to mention it here again. These builds are not officially
supported by Apache but work very well. Apache still uses VC6 (vc6 crt
hi Rasmus,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Aren't Apache VC9 builds readily available these days?
>
> http://www.apachelounge.com/download/
>
> We can't keep supporting what is now a 13-year old compiler.
As I said earlier already, we won't support VC6 any longer (the f
On 1/30/11 8:30 PM, Daniel Convissor wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 03:02:25PM -0800, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>>
>> It looks like all of these are reproducible only on vc6 build and
>> all have same issues with division and rounding, and all not
>> reproducible on vc9 - which makes me thing it's som
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 03:02:25PM -0800, Stas Malyshev wrote:
>
> It looks like all of these are reproducible only on vc6 build and
> all have same issues with division and rounding, and all not
> reproducible on vc9 - which makes me thing it's some vc6 problem.
> Maybe the one Gustavo identified
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> The following bugs seem to stem from these issues:
>>
>> 52798 dateTime => function diff => days KO
>> 51184 DateInterval has incorrect days property on windows
>>
>> 52920 Multiple datetime affects divisions
>> 52242 DateTime::di
Hi!
The following bugs seem to stem from these issues:
52798 dateTime => function diff => days KO
51184 DateInterval has incorrect days property on windows
52920 Multiple datetime affects divisions
52242 DateTime::diff affects round()
52469 Datetime affect the division
51894 DateTime::Diff b
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:13:01 -, Daniel Convissor
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 04:15:26PM +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
be sure to use the right type(s), do the casting correctly
Let's dial back the personalities for a moment. The issue raised above
produces bugs in DateTime::diff().
The
Hi Folks:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 04:15:26PM +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
> be sure to use the right type(s), do the casting correctly
Let's dial back the personalities for a moment. The issue raised above
produces bugs in DateTime::diff().
The existing code relies on C dropping decimal component
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 19:09 +0100, Keisial wrote:
> This thread went on bikeshedding about if it's legal C or not.
The question whether the code is legal or not is not bikeshedding.
Valid, correct, code is important. Both for function and for
maintenance.
The questions is cleared: The old code is
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Keisial wrote:
> The change was unrelated to types or castings.
No, but Derick knows what I meant here. I can't count the amount of
times I had to argue about why one thing or another should be done,
like correct casting, floor not being for float, checking mallo
Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>>> Now, as this extension is in the core and had a couple of issues that
>>> need to be fixed and without affecting the behavior, then I will fix
>>> them. Features addition o
On 01/25/2011 06:37 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Andrey Hristov wrote:
>
>> the first thing to do is to contact the extension maintainer, whoever
>> this is. We have karma system and people with php-src access, however it
>> is good first to contact the maintainer. On
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Andrey Hristov wrote:
> the first thing to do is to contact the extension maintainer, whoever
> this is. We have karma system and people with php-src access, however it
> is good first to contact the maintainer. On 2-3 occasions you have
> intervened in mysqlnd an
Pierre,
On 01/25/2011 04:07 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>
>>> Also doing so (testing a == NULL instead of !a) is a common and widely
>>> adopted practice
>>
>> Really? I've never written code like that
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> Now, as this extension is in the core and had a couple of issues that
>> need to be fixed and without affecting the behavior, then I will fix
>> them. Features addition or major changes will obvio
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Now, as this extension is in the core and had a couple of issues that
> need to be fixed and without affecting the behavior, then I will fix
> them. Features addition or major changes will obviously need review,
> as usual.
if (! tzid)
is *not* a
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> Also doing so (testing a == NULL instead of !a) is a common and widely
>> adopted practice
>
> Really? I've never written code like that. It's a preference.
That's not really a surprise.
> What
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
> Also doing so (testing a == NULL instead of !a) is a common and widely
> adopted practice
Really? I've never written code like that. It's a preference. What you
do in your maintained extensions is up to you, but don't override
other people's preferences
hi,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> Hum? Pierre's change is "correct", but it's also redundant.
It is not redundant. It can even help some compilers or analyzer.
> Please read the C FAQ: http://c-faq.com/null/ptrtest.html
>
> What would be invalid would be testing for a
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 19:11 +, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> Hum? Pierre's change is "correct", but it's also redundant.
>
> Please read the C FAQ: http://c-faq.com/null/ptrtest.html
>
> What would be invalid would be testing for a null pointer with something
> like this:
>
> void *p;
> ...
> int
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:53:48 -, Johannes Schlüter
wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 13:19 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
NULL is for pointers where 0 is for integer-like.
Testing if a ptr is NULL should be done by testing for NULL or not
NULL.
While compilers tolerate *ptr = 0 by casting 0 to N
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 13:19 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
> NULL is for pointers where 0 is for integer-like.
>
> Testing if a ptr is NULL should be done by testing for NULL or not
> NULL.
>
> While compilers tolerate *ptr = 0 by casting 0 to NULL, any other
> runtime check must use NULL. That's K
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
>>
>> > Why did you change this? It does exactly the same.
>>
>> No it does not. This test is now correct given its initial goal.
>
> Uh?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
>
> > Why did you change this? It does exactly the same.
>
> No it does not. This test is now correct given its initial goal.
Uh? Since when is:
if (!foo)
not the same as:
if (foo
hi,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Why did you change this? It does exactly the same.
No it does not. This test is now correct given its initial goal.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime De
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Pierre Joye wrote:
> pajoye Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:05:34 +
>
> Revision: http://svn.php.net/viewvc?view=revision&revision=307618
>
> Log:
> - be sure that we got tzid by adding a default case
[snip]
> @@ -908,11 +897,24 @@
>
43 matches
Mail list logo
