zend_long/zend_ulong without renaming everything else would be a perfect
solution from my point of view.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to Anatol
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
zend_long/zend_ulong without renaming everything else would be a perfect
solution from my point of view.
Again, no. long is the worst type ever, be as type or in names (ppl
then use this type to match the macro names).
If
On 21/08/2014 19:42, Andrea Faulds wrote:
* IS_LONG/long - 32-bit or 64-bit integer (machine-dependant)
* IS_BIGINT/bigint - arbitrary-size integer
* IS_BIGINT_OR_LONG/integer - either a long or a bigint (pseudo-type)
Replacing IS_LONG with IS_INT kinda ruins my naming scheme. The intention
On 21/08/14 19:10, Andrea Faulds wrote:
I would instead to ask you to try to migrate a not so trivial extension :)
No, seriously. Why can’t a sed script be used to change a constant name? Can
you tell me why that wouldn’t work?
Compatibility across all builds?
Many of the times 'blanket'
Moin,
On Thu, August 21, 2014 19:23, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to Anatol and Pierre the 64-bit patch is ready
https://github.com/weltling/php-src
I made quick code review and don't see any technical problems now.
The performance and memory consumption difference is negligible.
On 22 Aug 2014, at 08:10, Matteo Beccati p...@beccati.com wrote:
On 21/08/2014 19:42, Andrea Faulds wrote:
* IS_LONG/long - 32-bit or 64-bit integer (machine-dependant)
* IS_BIGINT/bigint - arbitrary-size integer
* IS_BIGINT_OR_LONG/integer - either a long or a bigint (pseudo-type)
Hi,
Thanks to Anatol and Pierre the 64-bit patch is ready
https://github.com/weltling/php-src
I made quick code review and don't see any technical problems now.
The performance and memory consumption difference is negligible. see
On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:23, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
The only thing that I don't like is a massive renaming described here
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next#semantical_macro_renamings
IS_LONG - IS_INT
Z_LVAL - L_IVAL
etc
On one hand using INT may be more
On 8/21/14, 10:23 AM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to Anatol and Pierre the 64-bit patch is ready
https://github.com/weltling/php-src
I made quick code review and don't see any technical problems now.
The performance and memory consumption difference is negligible. see
On Aug 21, 2014 7:42 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:23, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
The only thing that I don't like is a massive renaming described here
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next#semantical_macro_renamings
IS_LONG - IS_INT
On Aug 21, 2014 7:58 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:56, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
The original patch used the right naming based on the type used behind
it.
So IS_LONGLONG, then?
The original patch, the one from last year. We have made compromises
On 21 Aug 2014, at 19:03, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Now to be honest I would merge it right away. I do not see why we need to
discuss that again. When I see how phpng got accepted without a word, time to
stop arguing about such things. Merge and move back to code. If one
On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:56, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
The original patch used the right naming based on the type used behind it.
So IS_LONGLONG, then?
In any case, the patch represents what the rfc and the discussions around
it say. I rather merge it asal and begin on the (long)
On Aug 21, 2014 8:05 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014, at 19:03, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Now to be honest I would merge it right away. I do not see why we need
to discuss that again. When I see how phpng got accepted without a word,
time to stop arguing
On 21 Aug 2014, at 19:08, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Then please do a rfc, but we are not going to rewamp the patch for the 6th
time. It has been accepted and we have been more than cooperative.
Do we really need to delay this by three weeks?
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but
Pierre, wait a day, and if we won't have many developers, who against the
new names - commit it as is.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 2014 7:58 PM, Andrea Faulds a...@ajf.me wrote:
On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:56, Pierre
On 21 Aug 2014, at 19:14, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Pierre, wait a day, and if we won't have many developers, who against the new
names - commit it as is.
Perhaps none will be against it now, however, how will they feel when they have
to change IS_INT in their extensions *again*
On Aug 21, 2014 8:14 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Pierre, wait a day, and if we won't have many developers, who against the
new names - commit it as is.
Thanks. Dmitry.
We have waited months due to phpng. We have waited months due to objection
after the rfc was accepted already
On 21 Aug 2014, at 19:21, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
Why should we follow different rules than other RFCs? Bigint is a work in
progress, there is no vote, there is not even a discussion on this list about
it. Asking us to hang on again for yet another rfc is really not
I completely agree.
Dmitry.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 2014 8:14 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Pierre, wait a day, and if we won't have many developers, who against
the new names - commit it as is.
Thanks. Dmitry.
In worst case, we will always able to make a new RFC and rename them back,
but I really don't like to delay this patch just because few people
(including me) are not agree with names. RFC was already delayed for
months, and actually, it was voted with section about new names.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Dmitry Stogov dmi...@zend.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to Anatol and Pierre the 64-bit patch is ready
https://github.com/weltling/php-src
I made quick code review and don't see any technical problems now.
The performance and memory consumption difference is
On 21 Aug 2014, at 21:49, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
I am also concerned that we now have zend_uint_t (a 64-bit integer type)
and zend_uint (a 32-bit integer type). Notice the difference? Yes, it's the
missing _t.
I would appreciate it if we could consider the following
On Aug 21, 2014 10:49 PM, Nikita Popov nikita@gmail.com wrote:
I am against merging this with the long-int rename everywhere. This
seems like change for the sake of change.
It is accepted and ready to be merged.
I am also concerned that we now have zend_uint_t (a 64-bit integer type)
and
24 matches
Mail list logo
