Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:76781
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9eiLt7-a9vA-s2b7KymFLkGvFEW5rXJV5n3pMmkS+xxU6-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9eiLt7-a9vA-s2b7KymFLkGvFEW5rXJV5n3pMmkS+xxU6-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:49:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_aEFf8AOiE60e2Wup-4Cnro8UbVEvQJPfRhAStcdbxng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>, 
	Anatol Belski <ab@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1ca20a8b3e2050129d970
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 64-bit integers and 64-bit string length patch is ready
 to be merged
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--e89a8ff1ca20a8b3e2050129d970
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks to Anatol and Pierre the 64-bit patch is ready
> https://github.com/weltling/php-src
>
> I made quick code review and don't see any technical problems now.
>
> The performance and memory consumption difference is negligible. see
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PD4oiiXz6B0JbeZYnUSat5fHoq3_jAiCeI2cGHJ3UtQ/edit#gid=0
>
> The patch breaks one test on 32-bit Linux:
> ext/date/tests/bug53437_var3.phpt (seems to be a bogus test and wrong
> behavior in php5.6 and below) and one test on 64-bit Linux:
> ext/standard/tests/array/array_pad_variation2.phpt (has to be analyzed)
>
> The only thing that I don't like is a massive renaming described here
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/size_t_and_int64_next#semantical_macro_renamings
>
> IS_LONG -> IS_INT
> Z_LVAL -> L_IVAL
> etc
>
> On one hand using INT may be more consistent, on the other hand it's going
> to break habits and make addition headache for merging from php-5 (I know,
> phpng already made problems)
>
> I'm not sure how to proceed. If I'm alone, lets go ahead with new names. If
> some others prefer old names we will probably need voting.
>
> Despite of renaming, I would like to see this patch in master ASAP.
>
> Thanks. Dmitry.
>

I am against merging this with the long->int rename everywhere. This seems
like change for the sake of change.

I am also concerned that we now have zend_uint_t (a 64-bit integer type)
and zend_uint (a 32-bit integer type). Notice the difference? Yes, it's the
missing _t.

I would appreciate it if we could consider the following naming convention:

 * zend_(u)int - 32 bit integer type
 * zend_(u)long - 64 bit integer type (on 64 bit systems)

This retains the original meaning of the type, with the tweak that
zend_(u)long will be 64bit on LLP64 systems as well. This avoids the
confusion of having two types that only differ by a _t suffix and have
totally different meanings. It also removes any need to rename everything
from LONG to INT.

Thanks,
Nikita

--e89a8ff1ca20a8b3e2050129d970--