Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71696
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e0681b3331094323d383a048471790f8.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
References: <e0681b3331094323d383a048471790f8.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:23:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+90c-W+un8BsBD3OAeVL05s3iM5RxGnOD2Xa7nBPC+TuPijg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anatol Belski <ab@php.net>
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>, Matt Ficken <mattficken@php.net>, 
	"Stephen A. Zarkos" <szarkos@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6afcc5dc12d04f10d9a47
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length
 and integer
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--047d7bd6afcc5dc12d04f10d9a47
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Anatol Belski <ab@php.net> wrote:

> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64
>
> There was two big questions regarding the compatibility. Those open
> questions appeared in the discussions are reflected in the reworked RFC.
>
> First question, the possibility to keep the old zend_parse_parameters()
> specs 'l', 'L', 's', 'p' along with new 'i', 'I', 'S', 'P'. Keeping the
> old zpp specs will for sure minimize the porting effort for the PECL
> extensions, but might lead to confusion (like people might think 'l' still
> expects 'long' and not 'php_int_t'). Please use the yes/no Vote 3 to
> decide whether the 'l', 'L', 's', 'p' have to stay supported.
>
> Second question, the macro renames for LONG<>INT, STRLEN<>STRSIZE, etc.
> The reason for such renamings was to ensure source level incompatibility
> on compile time. However this might have a negative effect on the porting
> effort (despite the porting tools). Please use the yes/no Vote 2 to decide
> whether the old macro names have to be kept.
>
> The Vote 1 is the main vote for this patch. The both Votes 2 and 3 are
> merely to decide about the semantical replacements choosen for the patch.
> Should the Votes 2 and 3 result in reverting of that semantical changes,
> the essential patch part about the 64 bit support will not be hurt.
> Reverting to old macro names or zpp specs is only the naming issue.
>
> Removal of the dead SAPIs is isolated in a separate RFC and can be
> considered to another time.
>
> Thanks for the constructive discussions on this RFC, support and testing.
> The vote begins Monday, 27 January 2014, 21:30 CET and ends Monday, 03
> February 2014, 21:30 CET.
>

Just to clarify my vote: I voted "No" on the RFC, but only because I think
the major extension source API break is better suited to PHP 6 than PHP
5.6. I fully support merging this into master, as the first change for PHP
6.

Nikita

--047d7bd6afcc5dc12d04f10d9a47--