On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Jakub Zelenka <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think that this vote also makes sense for maintainers of PECL extensions
> as they will need to do lots of work.
>
> I am aware what the patch does and how much work I will need to do in my
> extensions. I actually did the openssl part of the 64bit patch just to see
> what changes will be required for my crypto ext which also is an openssl
> wrapper. And yes it will require lots of changes. Probably the most time
> consuming part of the porting (that wasn't mentioned here) is looking to
> the different versions of the libs and testing how it affects the
> extension. There are sometimes types changes between different versions of
> libs which can result in nasty bugs. For example the size_t change could
> even result to some security issues if it's not handled properly.
>
> The reason why I voted YES is that I don't see any difference if the patch
> is merged now or in the future. The work will need to be done anyway. It
> will just require more time that will need to be spent on maintaining the
> 64bit branch if the patch is merged later.
Also see Anatol latest post to internals, the sample extension shows
the difference between a 5.3/4/5 code and one supporting 5.3/4/5 and
with the int64 patch with the option #2 and #3. The changes are really
straightforward and far less intrusive than without these options.
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org