Re: Re: [DRAFT] [RFC] Function autoloading

On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Leigh <leight@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 30, 2013 1:31 PM, "Anthony Ferrara" <ircmaxell@gmail.com> wrote: >> For constants and function calls, the benchmark shows that the difference >> is well within the margin of error for the test (considering variances of >> 5% to 10% were common in my running of the tests). >> >> So hopefully this will dispel any worry about performance regressions in >> currently defined cases. >> >> The times where performance will take a hit, is with undefined functions >> and constants. Today, an undefined function will fatal error, so this >> performance hit would be 0, as it would enable something that's not >> possible today. > > I would assume there is actually potential for performance gain for > functions being autoloaded in larger codebases when the *_once calls are > removed that would normally load the common functions files. I just reply to this point: No. thinking we already have opcache there. so, *compiling* Functions is cheap. but if with function autoloading, *function autoloading* will execute every run. thanks -- Laruence Xinchen Hui http://www.laruence.com/