Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74400 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 56431 invoked from network); 21 May 2014 06:00:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 May 2014 06:00:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lester@lsces.co.uk; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lester@lsces.co.uk; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain lsces.co.uk from 217.147.176.214 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lester@lsces.co.uk X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.147.176.214 mail4-2.serversure.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [217.147.176.214] ([217.147.176.214:48982] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7F/64-24198-4114C735 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 02:00:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 19411 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2014 06:00:46 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 19385, pid: 19407, t: 0.2200s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52 Received: from unknown (HELO linux-dev4.lsces.org.uk) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 21 May 2014 06:00:46 -0000 Message-ID: <537C41E3.2040805@lsces.co.uk> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 07:04:19 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP internals References: <537BC669.2030704@sugarcrm.com> <537BDDEF.9070107@lerdorf.com> <537BEBA7.70807@lsces.co.uk> <537BEDD7.3060808@lerdorf.com> In-Reply-To: <537BEDD7.3060808@lerdorf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: 64bit and phpng, votes and plans From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 21/05/14 01:05, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 5/20/14, 4:56 PM, Lester Caine wrote: >> On 20/05/14 23:57, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >>> So let's not assume that just because one segment of the userbase >>> screams the loudest that this segment is representative. We have a large >>> and diverse userbase and we need to make balanced decisions. >> >> Handling BIGINT variables as a single 64bit number rather than as a >> string of characters would seem to be the more productive way of >> working, but is incompatible with 32bit platforms? It's working out >> exactly which path is the most productive which is the current question. >> If a 64bit integer is supported as a native variable, would it be >> practical to have it available on a 32bit platform? Having potentially >> to have to code for two different scenarios is not the best way of >> moving forward? > > That has absolutely nothing to do with 64-bit string offsets which is > what we are discussing here. But integer is wrapped up in the very same RFC ... and the handling of that is just as important ... -- 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