Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71810
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain oracle.com designates 156.151.31.81 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <52EAF0A3.2000001@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:38:59 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anatol Belski <ab@php.net>,
        PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <e0681b3331094323d383a048471790f8.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0681b3331094323d383a048471790f8.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] 64 bit platform improvements for string length
 and integer
From: christopher.jones@oracle.com (Christopher Jones)



On 01/27/2014 12:15 PM, Anatol Belski 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.
>
>

Hi Anatol,

A quick question: am I right to assume that because this vote has
widespread impact on PHP it needs 2/3 majority per https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting ?

It's not totally clear that the change is covered by any of the examples
in the voting RFC, but I see the 64 bit project as affecting the language
as a whole (for better or worse!)

Chris

PS I've updated the RFC template to remind authors to state
the acceptance criteria in the RFC.

-- 
christopher.jones@oracle.com  http://twitter.com/ghrd
Free PHP & Oracle book:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/php/underground-php-oracle-manual-098250.html