On 5/19/14, 9:52 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
>
>> But that is for minor tweaks and optimizations. In this case the way to
>> optimize the patch is to undo the 64-bitness in a number of places where
>> it doesn't make sense. Putting in a software-imposed limit on class size
>> names while still keeping it a 64-bit value in the struct makes no
>> sense, for example. Same goes for lineno, line_start, line_end, num_args
>> and a couple more that Nikita pointed out.
>
> That's not what we discussed.
>
>> And as far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with phpng. I'd
>> still be voting no on it as a 4% memory increase, which, by the way, you
>> don't even mention in the impacts section, is still too high for me when
>> I know parts of the 4% are completely unnecessary.
>
> We answer that already, be from Nikita, Dmitry or I. And yes, we agree
> on these points already.
Ok, then please update the RFC with what you see as the way forward,
including adding actual memory impacts to it and restart the vote when
the RFC is ready.
-Rasmus
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc