Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74367
Return-Path: <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 91666 invoked from network); 19 May 2014 16:54:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 19 May 2014 16:54:52 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=rasmus@lerdorf.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=rasmus@lerdorf.com; sender-id=unknown
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lerdorf.com from 209.85.216.178 cause and error)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: rasmus@lerdorf.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.178 mail-qc0-f178.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.216.178] ([209.85.216.178:64477] helo=mail-qc0-f178.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 88/51-15420-A573A735 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 19 May 2014 12:54:51 -0400
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id l6so9340623qcy.37
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 19 May 2014 09:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
         :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type;
        bh=rUsKmlRZMR5Znkh3RSPG/wIGLpZw1DBd7dDUKOp9PRs=;
        b=BKTQ6p1cQG//w+P5UrPyPl8k2qVyeE8yYRLmH/ycg/IjszUvfONXaYdyNHEHA8LT9n
         vv5fg8XbZxkwn6FXF4JYzrGZWRGm9u3CxACGUrIvqCrjwhdeHgOUAEZhwDYYlNfLYtJy
         eFp1teyXQD4YNPK/o7mFVDcJtK5cXDuh+iQisU/NjrfKhDpmmcu2J9Xb0KiJd25cMdPE
         3a+o/1uaXpEgMGYhYZqhd3cui05p7TL+wVDeZ+PafWgBeHq6mboG3gg1C8z3n57R0cBt
         I+3rcthZesaVKeCx8ohsp3luJwL/xVQge+CqL//Tu4SwJ8lv4Ej0cMHOTgrqUsW5YBsU
         Vxpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQljEnmEm3n/1kdEBWTmFgLB4CNkcEtOeZKx09U19zqLDgGwRKhZGfsPWQymyI2+3SHbkvzK
X-Received: by 10.140.94.39 with SMTP id f36mr48570709qge.64.1400518488525;
        Mon, 19 May 2014 09:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.200.30] (c-50-131-44-225.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.131.44.225])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d89sm11135566qga.2.2014.05.19.09.54.47
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Mon, 19 May 2014 09:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <537A3756.4060900@lerdorf.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:54:46 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>
CC: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, 
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
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>	<537A35D9.50807@lerdorf.com> <CAEZPtU7QUL0Rb-DMFmaa7kw=MFgKUhmOwKw+PwbpDe-4_mt21g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7QUL0Rb-DMFmaa7kw=MFgKUhmOwKw+PwbpDe-4_mt21g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="B7e7FeloBhVxBhoB0aUI3VgCFQld5UgWw"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Rethinking 64bit sizes and PHP-NG
From: rasmus@lerdorf.com (Rasmus Lerdorf)

--B7e7FeloBhVxBhoB0aUI3VgCFQld5UgWw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 5/19/14, 9:52 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wr=
ote:
>=20
>> But that is for minor tweaks and optimizations. In this case the way t=
o
>> optimize the patch is to undo the 64-bitness in a number of places whe=
re
>> it doesn't make sense. Putting in a software-imposed limit on class si=
ze
>> names while still keeping it a 64-bit value in the struct makes no
>> sense, for example. Same goes for lineno, line_start, line_end, num_ar=
gs
>> and a couple more that Nikita pointed out.
>=20
> That's not what we discussed.
>=20
>> And as far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with phpng. I'd
>> still be voting no on it as a 4% memory increase, which, by the way, y=
ou
>> don't even mention in the impacts section, is still too high for me wh=
en
>> I know parts of the 4% are completely unnecessary.
>=20
> We answer that already, be from Nikita, Dmitry or I. And yes, we agree
> on these points already.

Ok, then please update the RFC with what you see as the way forward,
including adding actual memory impacts to it and restart the vote when
the RFC is ready.

-Rasmus


--B7e7FeloBhVxBhoB0aUI3VgCFQld5UgWw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAlN6N1YACgkQlxayKTuqOuD13ACcDn7cd1p/1lot5MXtYSrClaus
NwAAoIHUwu0muctCMJ+Q9W+oclrbCQrv
=lshC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--B7e7FeloBhVxBhoB0aUI3VgCFQld5UgWw--