Re: A call for help (urgent)

On 17 May 2014, at 16:37, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: > > On 17 במאי 2014, at 17:32, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: >> >> Everyone, please vote yes. The No side is unlikely to lose, due to the 2/3 majority >> required. The Yes side does need a lot of help to win, though. Remember, every no vote requires 2 >> yes votes to counteract it. > > 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. > Spinning phpng's work as something evil is as ridiculous as it is wrong. Sabotaging it > because of it is even worse. I never said phpng was evil. I said it was developed behind closed doors. You, on the other hand, just said that the 64-bit patch is evil ("applying this patch is morally wrong”). Two can play at this game. “Spinning the 64-bit patch as something evil is as ridiculous as it is wrong.” > You don't seem to realize what's going on here. It won't delay it, it'll > greatly slow it down, and given phpng is all about performance - it negates its goals. Phpng's > key performance gain had to do with compacting it's data structures. This goes in the opposite > direction, 180 degrees. There's no way to fix it later as some suggest, it's an inherent > incompatibility in directions. > > 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? -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/