Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74172 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 68499 invoked from network); 14 May 2014 08:53:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 May 2014 08:53:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=dmitry@zend.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=dmitry@zend.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.220.178 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: dmitry@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.178 mail-vc0-f178.google.com Received: from [209.85.220.178] ([209.85.220.178:63208] helo=mail-vc0-f178.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 41/B5-40033-20F23735 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 04:53:22 -0400 Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hq16so2066282vcb.9 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 01:53:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YSRQeaplNe/YFex2y/JeD5dDDnkXUum/aViCmWf6Hug=; b=gH5QEGzSZFh59N8GDn/0mGxuT2uTm0gSSowxNxH8eDITCCg8kKCOrOWfccde79ExFf mig8nuxJUlpd71tga5PcfNpyPXmI0wUT78qnT1a2h2izst8wSOM9f29TB6eihtdN5U7b Rn/o8EfjL7VuueOTmS3wZOGiGaXDTBms09h/br1LNCsajFZHDwCEHJS0ssgSWYwzhXrW 7vtQpi9bAy8Dir3A6EL8g7UC6QkFn/Z7IfQclpQKoedc+wHUKz42FAAqqhdcUz4cYl+d SW9yFtrR1aFpHd0E7NpWgSQ38jYFTwqKjq0FN4UxxKhDDyQeuqitvh9XK0MYZCePNzoU c2TQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmzIFFquoZblSIgCJw0e4Jgz0XT/xfdvfu8Gn15keWw8FIp0SGf9N3GsBTHy8sGLXgNAq2Isx353pB7O0nn7E4+r5GmhYODnwO524uC2EWw4OHYriFDP5Q1vEC9JD5fACE1HC1R MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.11.230 with SMTP id t6mr1699243vdb.27.1400057599860; Wed, 14 May 2014 01:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.111.71 with HTTP; Wed, 14 May 2014 01:53:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53732673.3080106@lsces.co.uk> References: <53732673.3080106@lsces.co.uk> Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 12:53:19 +0400 Message-ID: To: Lester Caine Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b397dd629e7b7fa04f9584fe9 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] [RFC] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: dmitry@zend.com (Dmitry Stogov) --485b397dd629e7b7fa04f9584fe9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 phpng is based on the same sources and 99% compatible. We are just changing the basement. it must be the basement for PHPNext, but we didn't start any discussions about that. We actually have a lot of work to do and spend most the time doing our best. We have no plans to backport it into PHP-5.6. PHP supports 64bit for ages, and this proposal has nothing common with 64bit support in general. It allows 2GB strings, but do you imagine a web application that need them? However, each big PHP site will have to "pay" for it. Thanks. Dmitry. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > On 14/05/14 06:46, Pierre Joye wrote: > >> Independently of that: In a lot of the previous discussion people have >>> many, >>> >many, many times asked that this patch be implemented without all those >>> >macros renames and zpp changes. I still have a hard time seeing the >>> benefit >>> >of doing that. The zpp changes also conflict with phpng, because S has a >>> >different meaning (and imho for no good reason - it could just as well >>> stay >>> >at s). >>> >> This can be adapted, this is a details. It is also why I have tried >> to get phpng and this patch along together and get both teams work >> together. Cooperation in this case will be benefit for php as a whole >> as more optimization can be achieve while keeping the safe&clean >> implementation. >> >> As of now, phpng has been worked on for the last months, totally >> privately. And even if it looks promising it is still not remotely >> ready to be actually proposed. However it does not prevent you to use >> it to stop other improvements, which have been worked on for months, >> publically, with continuous tests, status updates, etc. I am not sure >> what is happening here is good for PHP. >> > > My personal impression is that phpng is yet another independent port of > php just like HHVM and the like. These all target a particular area of PHP > use and may not be suitable for 'home users'. As an alternative base for > PHPNext it may have a better pedigree and to that end a decision needs to > be made for the path forward. What seems totally out of place here is a > vote on something which has no real target yet? Has phpng already been > accepted as PHPNext? That PHPNext will be 64bit is a given? So what is the > need for a vote on a 'detail that can be changed'? It's the detail elements > that need to be agreed on ... not the principle of 64bit! > > Hopefully there is no plan to backport this to the PHP5 builds? > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > ----------------------------- > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk > EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ > Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk > Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > --485b397dd629e7b7fa04f9584fe9--