Mailing-List: contact dev-help@perl.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4227E705.7010009@stason.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:41:41 -0500
From: Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org>
Organization: Hope, Humanized
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Schaefer <joe+gmane@sunstarsys.com>
Cc: dev@perl.apache.org
Subject: Re: ACL filesystem incompatibility and potential race condition
References: <cc02f030050301141158cc8d2d@mail.gmail.com>
 <42252B04.4080407@stason.org> <cc02f030050301233836dded99@mail.gmail.com>
 <4225BB2B.1050707@stason.org> <cc02f03005030209362f27342@mail.gmail.com>
 <42264D18.3000503@stason.org> <cc02f030050302171156c8184d@mail.gmail.com>
 <4226711A.9000501@stason.org> <cc02f030050302230065c76650@mail.gmail.com>
 <422710FA.2010600@stason.org> <cc02f030050303110657a688f1@mail.gmail.com>
 <4227AB9F.6000605@stason.org> <4227AFCB.6020502@stason.org>
 <87ll94rxli.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com> <4227BF9A.9010609@stason.org>
 <87hdjsrwfu.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com> <4227C5CC.9080405@stason.org>
 <87d5ugrtn5.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <87d5ugrtn5.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Stas Bekman <stas@stason.org> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>>Two questions:
>>
>>1) did you by chance look at how this magic is generated?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly how it all works; probably some combination
> of overload.pm and internal support from perl itself.  I think
> all the fallback option actually does is set
> 
>     ${"APR::Error::()"} = 1
> 
> 
>>Do we pay any penalty for letting overload handle that?
> 
> 
> IMO the costs are comparable to everything else related to
> using overload, so I don't expect it to be too costly.
> I could be wrong though, so benchmark that if it's a concern.

The 'fallback' approach is almost 3 times slower:

Benchmark:
timing 1000000 iterations of
  explicit, fallback
...

   explicit:  6 wallclock secs ( 4.17 usr +  0.05 sys =  4.22 CPU) @ 
236966.82/s (n=1000000)

   fallback: 14 wallclock secs (11.22 usr +  0.10 sys = 11.32 CPU) @ 
88339.22/s (n=1000000)


here is the benchmark:

use strict;
use warnings;

package A;

use overload
      fallback => 1,
      '0+'     => sub { $_[0]->[0] };

sub new { bless [5], __PACKAGE__ };

package B;

use overload
      '=='    => sub { $_[0]->[0] == $_[1] },
      '0+'    => sub { $_[0]->[0] };

sub new { bless [5], __PACKAGE__ }

package main;

use Benchmark qw(timethese) ;

my $a = A->new;
my $b = B->new;

timethese(1_000_000,
           {
            'fallback' => sub { $a == 5 ? "OK" : "NOK"},
            'explicit' => sub { $b == 5 ? "OK" : "NOK"},
           });

>>2) is it safe to rely on the magic for other ops we haven't thought
>>of? 
> 
> I think so.  If not, I'd say that's a bug in overload.pm itself.

Well, I just reported a segfault caused by overload (well it can be easily 
avoided, was caused by a recursive overload).

How about we keep an explicit mapping for now and add fallback if later we 
will see that there is a need for it?

-- 
__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org