yes.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:
> > Hi Pierre,
> >
> > I appreciate your professionalism in helping with phpng.
> >
> > I object against the proposal, because in my opinion, it makes
> significant
> > degradation even for master.
> > (Please don't argue about it again. You have your opinion, I have mine,
> we
> > already wrote a lot).
> >
> > I also think, it makes sense to target at least IS_LONG part of this
> patch
> > to phpng.
> >
> > Other changes are questionable. In phpng we may relatively easy check the
> > impact of 64-bit string size on performance and memory consumption to
> make a
> > decision. I don't have any special opinion right now.
> >
> > I didn't get your position about zend_size_t in all core structures. And
> > this is the main question.
>
> I think I was again not clear. This is the part we will drop. We
> simply can't do it now for the reasons I explained in the mail. But as
> I and Nikita said earlier there are areas for improvements and tweaks,
> only the right time to do it is debatable, I prefer to have a stable,
> testable branch before going to change these parts again with the risk
> of making the whole thing hard to test, debug or improve. Is it
> something you can live with?
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
>