Hello!
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 1:33 PM Daniel Kesselberg
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for all your feedback on the RFC.
>
> I've updated the RFC to incorporate most of your feedback:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/num_available_processors
>
> 1) The limitation, that the CPU affinity mask is ignored
> 2)
On Sunday, 15 June 2025 at 19:32, Daniel Kesselberg
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for all your feedback on the RFC.
>
> I've updated the RFC to incorporate most of your feedback:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/num_available_processors
>
> 1) The limitation, that the CPU affinity mask is ignored
This i
On Sun, Jun 15, 2025, at 9:04 AM, Daniel Kesselberg wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> I've reworked the introduction at
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/num_available_processors and hopefully the use
> case is a bit clearer now.
>
> Best
> Daniel
It is, thanks.
For the name, I do
Hi
Am 2025-06-15 19:30, schrieb Daniel Kesselberg:
How do we continue? ;) I see there are various ideas how to approach
it, is that something you would vote (let's do a or b) on, or how does
that work?
Having secondary votes is generally frowned upon for this kind of simple
RFCs. It's mostly
Hi,
Thanks for all your feedback on the RFC.
I've updated the RFC to incorporate most of your feedback:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/num_available_processors
1) The limitation, that the CPU affinity mask is ignored
2) The naming discussion
3) Function availability on unsupported platforms
4) Retu
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your feedback. I've added a note, to the proposal section,
that the cpu affinity mask is currently not considered.
The current patch is rather small. Taking the CPU affinity mask into
account will require a more work and introduces different code paths for
linux, bsd and w
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your feedback.
I've reworked the introduction at
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/num_available_processors and hopefully the use
case is a bit clearer now.
Best
Daniel
On 2025-05-25 22:22, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 12:37 PM, Daniel Kesselberg wrote:
Hi ev
On 5/24/25 15:28, Niels Dossche wrote:
On 24/05/2025 21:24, Rob Landers wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 19:42, Niels Dossche wrote:
Hi
In my opinion, the return type should not be nullable.
Returning NULL when the platform (or PHP on that platform) doesn't support
getting this information i
On 5/27/25 12:01, Derick Rethans wrote:
On 27 May 2025 17:37:47 BST, Ben Ramsey wrote:
Are you suggesting that the function itself not be available or that it throws
when you attempt to call it on a system that doesn't support it?
I don't like the idea of the function not being available if
On 27 May 2025 17:37:47 BST, Ben Ramsey wrote:
>
>Are you suggesting that the function itself not be available or that it throws
>when you attempt to call it on a system that doesn't support it?
>
>I don't like the idea of the function not being available if the system
>doesn't support the funct
Le samedi 24 mai 2025, 19:42:34 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Niels Dossche a
écrit :
> In my opinion, the return type should not be nullable.
> Returning NULL when the platform (or PHP on that platform) doesn't support
> getting this information is an anti-pattern.
> Instead, availability of the
On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 12:37 PM, Daniel Kesselberg wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm happy to share my first RFC :) It proposes adding a small function
> to retrieve the number of available processors; a feature that's
> commonly found in other programming languages and one that I believe
> would
Hi
Am 2025-05-25 12:07, schrieb Alwin Garside:
Finally, from a quick search in php-src there doesn't seem to be any
existing function name that starts with `num_`. For the sake of
consistency with the existing PHP functions, and similar functionality
in other languages, I suggest suffixing the
On Sun, May 25, 2025, at 12:07, Alwin Garside wrote:
> On 24 May 2025, at 20:48, Rob Landers wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 19:37, Daniel Kesselberg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> I'm happy to share my first RFC :) It proposes adding a small function
> >> to retrieve th
On 24 May 2025, at 20:48, Rob Landers wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 19:37, Daniel Kesselberg wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm happy to share my first RFC :) It proposes adding a small function
>> to retrieve the number of available processors; a feature that's
>> commonly found i
On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 22:28, Niels Dossche wrote:
> On 24/05/2025 21:24, Rob Landers wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 19:42, Niels Dossche wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the return type should not be nullable.
> >> Returning NULL when the platform (or PHP on that platform
On 24/05/2025 21:24, Rob Landers wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 19:42, Niels Dossche wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> In my opinion, the return type should not be nullable.
>> Returning NULL when the platform (or PHP on that platform) doesn't support
>> getting this information is an anti-pattern.
>> I
On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 19:42, Niels Dossche wrote:
> Hi
>
> In my opinion, the return type should not be nullable.
> Returning NULL when the platform (or PHP on that platform) doesn't support
> getting this information is an anti-pattern.
> Instead, availability of the necessary functionality
On Sat, May 24, 2025, at 19:37, Daniel Kesselberg wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm happy to share my first RFC :) It proposes adding a small function
> to retrieve the number of available processors; a feature that's
> commonly found in other programming languages and one that I believe
> would be
Hi
In my opinion, the return type should not be nullable.
Returning NULL when the platform (or PHP on that platform) doesn't support
getting this information is an anti-pattern.
Instead, availability of the necessary functionality should be checked at
configure time and the function should be ma
Hi everyone,
I'm happy to share my first RFC :) It proposes adding a small function
to retrieve the number of available processors; a feature that's
commonly found in other programming languages and one that I believe
would be a useful addition to PHP.
The related PR has already received a b
21 matches
Mail list logo
