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 negligible. see > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD4oiiXz6B0JbeZYnUSat5fHoq3_jAiCeI2cGHJ3UtQ/edit#gid=0 > > The patch breaks one test on 32-bit Linux: > ext/date/tests/bug53437_var3.phpt (seems to be a bogus test and wrong > behavior in php5.6 and below) and one test on 64-bit Linux: > ext/standard/tests/array/array_pad_variation2.phpt (has to be analyzed) > > 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 consistent, on the other hand it's going > to break habits and make addition headache for merging from php-5 (I know, > phpng already made problems) > > I'm not sure how to proceed. If I'm alone, lets go ahead with new names. If > some others prefer old names we will probably need voting. > > Despite of renaming, I would like to see this patch in master ASAP. > > Thanks. Dmitry. > I am against merging this with the long->int rename everywhere. This seems like change for the sake of change. 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 naming convention: * zend_(u)int - 32 bit integer type * zend_(u)long - 64 bit integer type (on 64 bit systems) This retains the original meaning of the type, with the tweak that zend_(u)long will be 64bit on LLP64 systems as well. This avoids the confusion of having two types that only differ by a _t suffix and have totally different meanings. It also removes any need to rename everything from LONG to INT. Thanks, Nikita
