Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:53252 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 64070 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2011 17:19:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Jun 2011 17:19:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 207.97.245.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 207.97.245.153 smtp153.iad.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [207.97.245.153] ([207.97.245.153:50023] helo=smtp153.iad.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 15/6E-54720-32252FD4 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:19:31 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp25.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7B0AB3006F1; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:19:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp25.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 80273300717; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DF2521E.3080604@sugarcrm.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:19:26 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Crenshaw CC: Derick Rethans , PHP Developers Mailing List References: <4DF24AA1.4070907@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 32 bit / 64 bit integer confusion From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > This is not exactly correct. I think what you meant to say, is "long > isn't the same size as a pointer on Windows". I actually meant to say it's no longer than int, which makes this type kind of pointless currently. Both behaviors conform C standards and I'm sure there were reasons why Windows devs chose long to be not long, but it is unfortunate that this choice is different from most of other systems in existence. As for minimal ranges, I think they are quite outdated - there are not many 16-bit systems around anymore, so most ints would be 32-bit by now. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227