Re: A call for help (urgent)
>>
>> That has nothing to do with the fact applying this patch is morally wrong, and also may or
>> may not be true.
>
> Morally wrong? I don’t see how morals come into this. Yes, it would undo some work that has
> been done by you, in favour of someone else’s work. But I don’t see what’s ‘wrong’ about
> that.
Between the list of names I wrote, you have 80-90% of the engine code
if not more. The yes group is - for the most part - comprised of non
engine contributors, which are forcing their will on the ones who are.
I'm not saying these guys aren't PHP contributors, btw. But much
like I wouldn't dream of telling the docs team how they should do
their job, I don't expect the opposite to happen either.
> I never said phpng was evil. I said it was developed behind closed doors.
You suggested it was somehow inferior because of that, not just stating a fact.
>> For the current PHP it yields an 8% memory increase. For phpng it'll be a lot more
>> since it's data structures are more compact and therefore it'll be a lot more, relatively
>> speaking.
>
> Relatively, yes. In absolute terms, however, what is the gap between vanilla and phpng + 64bit
> patch?
We don't have any numbers about phpng plus the patch because it
doesn't yet exist. My guess is that it'll be in the 20-30% range to
add this patch to phpng. Comparing to vanilla doesn't make sense at
all - we didn't work phpng to waste the gains on this patch - but to
improve performance.
Zeev
Thread (13 messages)