I wouldn't change it for string length. For representing characters, there were subtle problems on 64-bit archtitectures when the int size changed. That is why ICU went with fixing the int size at 32-bit, if I recall correctly, not to mention the waste of memory.
Tex Texin Internationalization Architect, Yahoo! Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 1:25 AM > To: Andi Gutmans > Cc: Dmitry Stogov; 'Andrei Zmievski'; php-i18n@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-I18N] Ideas for a portable string api > > > Hello Andi, > > yes i don't see a reason for a change either. > > marcus > > Thursday, February 23, 2006, 3:02:46 AM, you wrote: > > > I think int is fine for this and we don't need to be super-accurate > > on the unsigned for string length. This is how we work > today and it's > > a big change for no real gain. > > > At 01:15 AM 2/21/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: > >>Hello Dmitry, > >> > >>Tuesday, February 21, 2006, 7:45:17 AM, you wrote: > >> > >> > I don't like int32_t because > >> > >> > 1) it is defined in ICU. > >> > >> int32_t is defined in <stdint.h> by ansi c 89. > >> > >> > 2) I will need to rewrite a lot of existing functions to use > >> int32_t instead > >> > of int. > >> > >>3) Both int and int32_t are wrong. The only correct choice would be > >>size_t. > >> > >>best regards > >>marcus > >> > >> > Thanks. Dmitry. > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:26 AM > >> >> To: Andrei Zmievski; Dmitry Stogov > >> >> Cc: php-i18n@lists.php.net > >> >> Subject: Re: [PHP-I18N] Ideas for a portable string api > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Is there a reason why? > >> >> We usually just use int/uint almost anywhere... Then > again I don't > >> >> really care because 32bit should be plenty (famous last > >> >> words) for strings.... > >> >> > >> >> Andi > >> >> > >> >> At 10:16 PM 2/20/2006, Andrei Zmievski wrote: > >> >> >I prefer to use fixed integer type, int32_t. > >> >> > > >> >> >-Andrei > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >On Feb 20, 2006, at 11:11 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >>Hi Andrei, > >> >> >> > >> >> >>We decide to use the same type for str.len (now int) and > >> >> ustr.len (now > >> >> >>int32_t, it comes from ICU). > >> >> >> > >> >> >>I prefer to make both of them - int. > >> >> >>Any reclaims? I plan to do it at Thursday. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Thanks. Dmitry. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- > >> >> >>>From: Dmitry Stogov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >> >>>Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:12 PM > >> >> >>>To: php-i18n@lists.php.net > >> >> >>>Subject: RE: [PHP-I18N] Ideas for a portable string api > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>Hi, > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>After reviewing Marcus ideas, some experiments and speaking > >> >> >>>with Andrei. I propose the following solutions: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>1) We will not use any kind of unicode literals in C code > >> >> (no L"foo" > >> >> >>>no "f\0o\0o\0\0"), Because L"" is not portable and "f\0.." > >> >> looks to > >> >> >>>ugly. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>2) We will change "zval" structure to make > >> >> "zval.value.str.len" and > >> >> >>>"zval.value.ustr.len" of the same type. This will allow > >> >> >>>optimize > >> >> >>>Z_UNISTR() and Z_UNILEN() macros. They will > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>#define Z_UNISTR(z) ((void*)(Z_STRVAL(z))) > >> >> >>>#define Z_UNILEN(z) ((void*)(Z_STRLEN(z))) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>Instead of > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>#define Z_UNISTR(z) > >> >> >>>Z_TYPE(z)==IS_UNICODE?(char*)Z_USTRVAL(z):Z_STRVAL(z) > >> >> >>>#define Z_UNILEN(z) > >> >> >>>Z_TYPE(z)==IS_UNICODE?(int)Z_USTRLEN(z):Z_STRLEN(z) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>3) I don't like to break source compatibility with > >> >> modification of > >> >> >>>"zval" layout as Marcus suggested. We will pass > >> >> string/unicode values > >> >> >>>near in the same way as do today. As three values - > >> >> zend_uchar type, > >> >> >>>void* str, int len. But we will create a set of the > >> >> following macros > >> >> >>>to do it with less overhead. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>#define S_TYPE(x) _type_##x > >> >> >>>#define S_UNIVAL(x) _val_##x > >> >> >>>#define S_UNILEN(x) _len_##x > >> >> >>>#define S_STRVAL(x) ((char*)S_UNIVAL(x)) > >> >> >>>#define S_USTRVAL(x) ((UChar*)S_UNIVAL(x)) > >> >> >>>#define S_STRLEN(x) S_UNILEN(x) > >> >> >>>#define S_USTRLEN(x) S_UNILEN(x) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>#define S_ARG(x) zend_uchar S_TYPE(x), void > >> >> >>>*S_UNIVAL(x), int > >> >> >>>S_UNILEN(x) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>#define S_PASS(x) S_TYPE(x), > S_UNIVAL(x), S_UNILEN(x) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>#define Z_STR_PASS(x) Z_TYPE(x), > Z_UNIVAL(x), Z_UNILEN(x) > >> >> >>>#define Z_STR_PASS_P(x) Z_TYPE_P(x), Z_UNIVAL_P(x), > >> >> >>>Z_UNILEN_P(x) > >> >> >>>#define Z_STR_PASS_PP(x) Z_TYPE_PP(x), Z_UNIVAL_PP(x), > >> >> >>>Z_UNILEN_PP(x) > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>Then most zend_u_... Functions must be rewriten with these > >> >> >>>macros > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>Foe example: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>ZEND_API int zend_u_lookup_class(S_ARG(name), > >> >> zend_class_entry ***ce > >> >> >>>TSRMLS_DC) > >> >> >>>{ > >> >> >>> return zend_u_lookup_class_ex(S_PASS(name), 1, ce > >> >> >>>TSRMLS_CC); } > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>Instead of > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>ZEND_API int zend_u_lookup_class(zend_uchar type, > void *name, > >> >> >>>int name_length, zend_class_entry ***ce TSRMLS_DC) { > >> >> >>> return zend_u_lookup_class_ex(type, name, > >> >> name_length, 1, ce > >> >> >>>TSRMLS_CC); } > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>Any objections, additions? > > -- > PHP Unicode & I18N Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- PHP Unicode & I18N Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
