> Am 10.06.2016 um 16:24 schrieb Levi Morrison <le...@php.net>: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Dmitry Stogov <dmi...@zend.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> I hardly worked on implementation of this patch for a week, but I still >> don't like it. >> >> It makes 15% slowdown on each property update in existing PHP code (without >> types), and I don't see a way to improve this. >> >> Update of typed properties is going to be even more expensive. >> >> Benchmark results are included into RFC (and not changed with the latest >> version of the patch). >> >> >> -1. >> >> >> Thanks. Dmitry. >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> >> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 1:38:04 PM >> To: PHP internals; Phil Sturgeon >> Subject: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties >> >> Afternoon internals, >> >> The vote for typed properties has been restarted. >> >> Please take part: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/typed-properties >> >> Cheers >> Joe > > To clarify though, didn't Wordpress and Mediawiki see only a 0.1% > slowdown? In my opinion that is definitely a tolerable performance hit > for such a feature.
Right, the 15% are quite skewed … it's in a tight loop which means ideal L1 cache utilization and the number of executed instructions for a runtime-cached ASSIGN_OBJ is very small. Where even 4 additional instructions make significant difference. The 0.1% slowdown of WP and MW are painting a much more realistic (aka real-world) image. And as the RFC writes, "may be caused not by the additional checks but by the worse CPU cache utilization, because the size of PHP code was increased on 40KB". These micro-benches are really insignificant, especially as it is trivial (in tight loops) to work on a local CV and only assign it later to the property. This IMO is really voting no for the wrong reasons... Bob -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
