Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71114 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 27646 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2014 22:03:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Jan 2014 22:03:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 198.187.29.241 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 198.187.29.241 imap3-1.ox.registrar-servers.com Received: from [198.187.29.241] ([198.187.29.241:41531] helo=imap3-1.ox.registrar-servers.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 26/57-21529-1C264D25 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:03:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825522A0099; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:03:42 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap3.ox.registrar-servers.com Received: from oxmail.registrar-servers.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap3.ox.registrar-servers.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id OZT8ZLZxcXVu; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:03:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.200] (unknown [176.25.177.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oxmail.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 496082A0086; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:03:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <52D462BB.9060309@ajf.me> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:03:39 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yasuo Ohgaki , Anatol Belski CC: PHP Developers Mailing List References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) On 13/01/14 21:57, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: > What's the reason not to introduce larger int for 32bit platforms? > Too much performance impact? I've wondered this myself. It makes me also wonder if it's the case using 64-bit on 32-bit platforms is a little too slow, couldn't you just transparently store 32-bit and then switch to 64-bit if necessary? -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/