Hi Anatol,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Anatol Belski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> greateful thanks for taking a look at this patch.
>
> On Thu, January 23, 2014 09:42, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> > I completely agree with Nikita.
> > Why to rename LONG->INT STRLEN->STRSIZE in thousands places?
> > Why not just define zend_long and zend_ulong to be 64-bit on 64-bit
> > platforms and use them instead of int, ulint, zend_int, zend_uint, long,
> > ulong where it's necessary.
> >
> > Anatol, I understood your point about catching incompatibility code at
> > compile-time, but I'm not sure if the new features cost such huge code
> > base changes.
> Firstly it's the historical reason as while porting it "had" to break so
> one could easy see the relevant places. After that - it's also a
> transformation in the mind, as that int placeholders do not depend on a
> fixed datatype anymore.
>
historical reason of the patch itself doesn't matter :)
If there's no significant reason to introduce new names lets use old ones.
Even with new names anyone is able to change macros but not types.
It's better to use some smarter compile-time protection.
I would try to play with "compile time assert" (in GCC it must be even
possible to use __builtin_types_compatible_b()).
For example:
#define CONCAT_TOKENS(a, b) a ## b
#define EXPAND_THEN_CONCAT(a, b) CONCAT_TOKENS(a, b)
#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(expr) do { \
enum { EXPAND_THEN_CONCAT(ASSERT_line_,__LINE__) = 1 /
!!(expr) }; \
} while(0)
int main()
{
int a;
COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(__builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), long));
COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(sizeof(a) == 8);
return 0;
}
>
> > 1) 64-bit integers on Windows (they are already 64-bit on other systems)
> > 2) 64-bit string length. I don't think many people are interested in
> that.
> > Fortunately, the patch doesn't change the zval size, so it shouldn't
> > make a lot of harm. However, usage of "zend_size_t" instead of "int"
> > is a
> > bit annoying. I would change it into the same "zend_long" or
> "zend_ulong".
> >
> The original patch was for size_t only. With only that it were Linux/Unix
> only improvement, as size_t is 64 bit on Windows so it'd have to stay int
> or become just unsigned. Omitting the size_t change and doing int64 were
> only improvement on Windows. Adding both is the three-way improvement -
> Linux and Windows with biggest possible strings, Windows with 64 bit
> integers. So in fact, doing only one of those wouldn't IMHO justify all
> the effort.
>
After some thoughts I think that usage of "size_t" is a good thing for the
future support of X32 ABI.
X86: sizeof(int)=4 sizeof(long)=4 sizeof(sizet_t)=4
X86-64 (Linux): sizeof(int)=4 sizeof(long)=8 sizeof(sizet_t)=8
X86-64 (Win64): sizeof(int)=4 sizeof(long)=4 sizeof(sizet_t)=8
X32: sizeof(int)=4 sizeof(long)=8 sizeof(sizet_t)=4
>
> Additional Windows improvement "for free" is the whole file API
> exhausting, so large file objects and offsets.
>
> That's true, the possibility to process gigabytes of data in memory will
> not be needed every day, however the presence of it is something else.
> Like, why should I be interested on something not available anyway?
>
> Keeping size_t separated semantically is good for several reasons. It's
> clean with the specification. Should it come to 64 bit integer on 32 bit
> platform, it's easier to continue (merging size_t and ulong would break
> this option). And, one day it can come to 128 bit integers (for what
> reasons ever). I know, it's science fiction now, but wasn't a RAM size of
> 1Gb so 10 years ago? You never know. So size_t separated from unsigned int
> is a good thing imho and keeps some interesting options open for the
> future.
>
Agreed.
> At the end line, the new vs. old names is the last thing I personally
> would ultimately hang on, given the essential modification is in place.
> However the code clearly expressing what happens is something I'd call
> more appropriate with such a big substantial change.
>
It's questionable. I' mot sure what names are better but big changes are
always annoying.
May be it makes sense to extend votiing with options ("with renaming" and
"without renaming")
Thanks. Dmitry.
>
> Best regards
>
> Anatol
>
>
>
>