On 14/05/14 06:30, Nikita Popov wrote:
Sorry, what did I miss here? Why cannot the phpng numbers be taken as
"valid"? The very same issue also exists in our current implementation. In
phpng the relative hit is just larger, because the structures are more
optimized.
I think you shouldn't dismiss Dmitry's point just like that. Having support
for 64 bit integers on Windows and other LLP64 architectures - that's
great. Making string lengths unsigned - that's great as well. But
supporting strings larger than 4G or arrays with more than 4 billion
elements - that does not seem very useful and unlike the other two changes,
hurts memory usage. I wonder how many people would prefer having lower
memory usage over having the ability to create arrays with 4 billion
elements.
Independently of that: In a lot of the previous discussion people have
many, many, many times asked that this patch be implemented without all
those macros renames and zpp changes. I still have a hard time seeing the
benefit of doing that. The zpp changes also conflict with phpng, because S
has a different meaning (and imho for no good reason - it could just as
well stay at s).
Nikita
I don't have a vote on the RFC but I still have to say +1 on this one. It makes sense to me to fix stuff that people might need in the next 5-10 years, but beyond that ???
IMO, Nikita has summarized the sensible threshold well.
Regards Terry