Hi!
> Before going any further, it should be established that two aspects of the
> 64 bit patch are, as far as I can see, acceptable to everyone: The
> introduction of 64bit integers on Win64 and other LLP64 architectures and
> the use of an unsigned integer type for lengths and sizes.
I would add a third aspect - using a dedicated set of types to signify
those, instead of relying on (potentially unportable) mishmash of
standard ones. This is being overlooked, but I'd like to emphasize that
I actually like the idea very much - with all the disruption that it
brings - as a chance to weed out all these false assumptions and sloppy
types still lurking in the guts of the engine and the extensions. I
wonder if we can also make clang to tell us on such type conversions
even if they match on specific system (I know there are hacks to do this
but they are way uglier than I'd like to use).
As for the rest, I think this is an excellent proposal and I agree with
pretty much all of it. I am still not convinced of the need for 64-bit
string sizes, but if we will be able to deal with much more important
issues - such as hashtables, internal name lengths (function/class),
etc. - I don't care, the difference is too small. I am not sure how the
technical details with zend_string will work out but if we agree that's
what we're doing and try to find the way to make it happen I'd think it
worth a serious try.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227