Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74038 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 18500 invoked from network); 7 May 2014 22:07:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 May 2014 22:07:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=anatol.php@belski.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=anatol.php@belski.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain belski.net from 85.214.73.107 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: anatol.php@belski.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.73.107 klapt.com Received: from [85.214.73.107] ([85.214.73.107:43901] helo=klapt.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2C/E3-30354-48EAA635 for ; Wed, 07 May 2014 18:07:00 -0400 Received: by klapt.com (Postfix, from userid 33) id 6258923D6106; Thu, 8 May 2014 00:06:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 178.7.113.80 (SquirrelMail authenticated user anatol@belski.net) by webmail.klapt.com with HTTP; Thu, 8 May 2014 00:06:57 +0200 Message-ID: <9ffd750d6162d87f48286491f06d93cd.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com> In-Reply-To: <5368E018.2040609@lsces.co.uk> References: <8b32b5b5b6d14c0c7aff1cb52087820f.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com> <5368E018.2040609@lsces.co.uk> Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 00:06:57 +0200 To: "Lester Caine" Cc: internals@lists.php.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.2 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: anatol.php@belski.net ("Anatol Belski") Hi Lester, On Tue, May 6, 2014 15:14, Lester Caine wrote: > On 06/05/14 11:58, Anatol Belski wrote: > >>> I'm afraid with all those concerns, I will have to vote "no". >>> >>>> >> Of course that would make me sad. Not only for the work done on that, >> but also for the future perspectives and for the quantity of the users >> who wish such thing. > > Having just been going through an exercise to convert Windows XP sites > to something M$ will allow to run without warning messages, the switch to a > more modern windows would seem sensible. Except we have been restricted to > using 32bit builds of windows for compatibility with the hardware. While > parts of PHP already require 64 bit integers which are handled in an even > less efficient way, switching to a clean 64 bit integer across all > platforms really is essential. Having to manage the difference in the user > code base is simply not an option :( > > The switch to a cleaner implementation base should allow proper planning > for that requirement? > absolutely, furthermore - Windows Server 2012 (and probably any upcoming) is not merchandased with 32-bit edition anymore. For 32 bit PHP there it means possible performance penalty. So usage of the true 64 bit PHP fully makes sense there. Regards Anatol