Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76264 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 95942 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2014 07:41:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jul 2014 07:41:51 -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] ([217.147.176.214:38443] helo=mail4.serversure.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id EF/88-29261-CB1A8D35 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 03:41:49 -0400 Received: (qmail 21165 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jul 2014 07:42:01 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.3.1 ppid: 21159, pid: 21162, t: 0.0590s scanners: attach: 1.3.1 clamav: 0.96/m:52 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.0.0.8?) (lester@rainbowdigitalmedia.org.uk@81.138.11.136) by mail4.serversure.net with ESMTPA; 30 Jul 2014 07:42:01 -0000 Message-ID: <53D8A1C8.1090007@lsces.co.uk> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:42:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: PHP internals References: <633025718.351649.1406699307462.open-xchange@app2.ox.registrar-servers.com> In-Reply-To: <633025718.351649.1406699307462.open-xchange@app2.ox.registrar-servers.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] signed long hash index for PHP7? From: lester@lsces.co.uk (Lester Caine) On 30/07/14 06:48, Andrea Faulds wrote: > That would make sense, but doesn't solve all edge cases as your maximum array > index is still more than 2 times the largest positive integer on 32-bit. Are we still looking at a situation where how a program performs is platform specific? An array index of 'bigint' would still not be usable on 32bit hardware? -- 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