Re: [RFC][VOTE] E_WARNING on invalid container read-adccess

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:36 AM Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:58 AM, David Walker <dave+php@mudsite.com> > wrote: > >> I'd like to extend the vote through Sunday evening in the event anyone had >> reservations based on potential performance impact. The RFC is currently >> sitting 15-0 in favor. >> > > I'd recommend extending the original end date by a week, since internals > tends to vote in weekly intervals (an informal minimal reasonable response > time, I suppose). > Good to know the general convention here. I'll extend a week until Wednesday the 31st. > > >> (added to RFC) >> Execution Time (DualCore 3ghz; 2g ram) >> * Current Master : ~0.09s (~489k operations) >> * Current Master w/RFC Displaying Warnings: ~33.25s >> * Current Master w/RFC Hiding Warnings: ~0.82s (~4.091m operations) >> >> We can see there is a significant increase in operations on huge loads. >> However, I wouldn't suspect 1m of these errors per request almost ever. >> So, yes there is; but I'd call it useful information overhead. >> > > I've not looked at the code. How much, if at all, does the RFC change the > happy path operation, on a test like this? > > $a = [ 'foo' ]; > for ($i = 0; $i < 1000000; $i++) { $a[0]; } > > Notwithstanding, I feel the ops increase 10x is worth it: this is a subtle > code problem. > That is my thoughts too. When testing this change against my product I uncovered 10 cases of this warning being raised (which was actually helpful), but only ever 2-3 per request. So I'd imagine it's never going to come to the 1m+ happenings per request ever. And for your given test case, since $a[0] is defined (as 'foo') the change in this RFC is not triggered, so there is no difference between any of the testings. -- Dave