Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74339
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU46qaKtUufaorcRp14_6wr1bHDVkJU5p+S0V+KzNF+jdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c8m8kMNjHOOKWs3iTxnLSVv41pk0mGjgzvvp2+Lieh+ig@mail.gmail.com>
	<53788337.9090006@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU7XM3Sihz0KyEpfPpYMeLZXvrz-H8SmD4LnP9gDRjNXiA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53789AD9.40109@lerdorf.com>
	<CAEZPtU46qaKtUufaorcRp14_6wr1bHDVkJU5p+S0V+KzNF+jdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 20:17:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH-PCH5EC77fg4mHd2Ov1jNe0wPjHfzKV1ztg4HcxRc7r2D4LQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
	PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c15f3ad4b70204f9b0a962
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Rethinking 64bit sizes and PHP-NG
From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs)

--001a11c15f3ad4b70204f9b0a962
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You keep talking about side effects of the patch.
>
> No, what I have to keep saying, because this argument keeps coming, is
> that the ability to store >2GB string is a side effect and not a goal
> of this patch.
>
> > It is these side
> > effects that we have a problem with. We need a version of the patch tha=
t
> > doesn't have all these undesired side effects.
>
> The only one, and it is disputable, is the memory usage, which is
> around 4% under real world usage (WP, Symfony, Drupal, and some other
> apps). It even performs better in many common situations.
>
> > You put the patch as it stands up for a vote and it is this patch we
> > have to vote on which is why I am voting no on it. It isn't some future
> > version with some unknown number of side effects removed.
>
> I am not sure how to formulate it in a better way but let me try again.
>
> - 64bit patch has been worked on and stabilized since months
> - It is continuously tested using master, 5.5 and 5.6, using our full
> tests suite (which is much more than just running phpt in cli if you
> remember)
> - the patch is stable
>
> Given these points, and as it is the case with every new
> features/addition/improvements we have made, tweaks, optimization,
> etc. will happen after it gets approved and applied. Stability and
> correctness have the priority.
>
> Asking to take care of phpng was hardly possible given its sudden
> public availability. However, we know that phpng can bring PHP a lot
> and that is why we gave the option to merge the 64bit patch to phpng,
> once it is gets somehow usable in common situations (estimation: 1-2
> months if not critical bugs exist in common extensions, but can't test
> them in a good way as of now).
>
> I will post a mail about what we plan to do and how, this pretty much
> matches what Nikita said and what I have been said since the very day
> after we proposed the 64 bit patch again. Most likely tonight or
> tomorrow morning.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Hi Pierre,

Thanks for the reply, based on your promise, I've voted  yes to the RFC.
I think that we could have saved a bunch of arguing back and forth if we
would have sorted out the side-effects first (or at least explicitly state
that you guys are ok with dropping/willing to drop those for measurable
performance gains), but I'm glad that we were able to reach an agreement
eventually.

--=20
Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

--001a11c15f3ad4b70204f9b0a962--