Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127696
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:59:47 +0000
To: Daniel Kesselberg <mail@danielkesselberg.de>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Add num_available_processors
Message-ID: <_m8K8T4Co2MzZINCftWEIP3PxkbsCe628Cbjdw_nyRErWoPrOHl5yolC9BQ6O3C_U6s-JHX_g58gt1oyu_zOx8Oqa3hx8ZYzLk3jSeZBZcU=@gpb.moe>
In-Reply-To: <adc31192d44d2d0ea12624fcb80f4ae4@danielkesselberg.de>
References: <bc1ec15125844c78a6aa23dce6148af9@danielkesselberg.de> <8b76a3d4-4583-4849-a75f-00f645191247@gmail.com> <db784868-187d-42ff-9575-64b5ca70f50b@app.fastmail.com> <57f7ed3e-6bef-434d-83db-fd729ff43fc9@gmail.com> <20250527163747.ADA6D1A00BD@lists.php.net> <0FC66A63-1284-41AF-AA27-27F657EB57AF@php.net> <20250527171352.552DD1A00BD@lists.php.net> <adc31192d44d2d0ea12624fcb80f4ae4@danielkesselberg.de>
Feedback-ID: 96993444:user:proton
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internals@gpb.moe ("Gina P. Banyard")

On Sunday, 15 June 2025 at 19:32, Daniel Kesselberg <mail@danielkesselberg.=
de> wrote:

> Hi,
>=20
> Thanks for all your feedback on the RFC.
>=20
> I've updated the RFC to incorporate most of your feedback:
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/num_available_processors
>=20
> 1) The limitation, that the CPU affinity mask is ignored

This is something you need to decide on as the RFC author.

> 2) The naming discussion

I don't care much about this topic, but possibly adding the sys_ prefix mak=
es the most sense to "soft namespace" the function.

> 3) Function availability on unsupported platforms

The function should not be available if it is unsupported,
as this how every other conditionally supported feature is handled.=20

> 4) Return type

Arguably, this should always return an integer.
Which if my understanding is correct, when you make it conditionally availa=
ble then it cannot fail.

> 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?

Small RFCs should only have a single yes/no vote.
As the RFC author, you can (and should) be opinionated.

Best regards,

Gina P. Banyard

PS: Minor list etiquette remainder, please do not top post, and only keep t=
he relevant things while quoting.