On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Dmitry Stogov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > int64 proposal is still in draft for very long time.
>
> Sorry, but it was proposed and rejected because of the changes were
> too big for the 5.x serie. It has been said, as arguments for the no,
> that it would not be a problem for php 6. We are so far.
>
I was never glad with size_t string lengths and told about it.
>
> > Do you provide support for all other unrelated proposals when you offer
> your
> > own?
>
> I do not understand the question, what do you mean?
>
I mean that when you develop something big, you have to be concentrated on
the goals you are going to solve and not on compatibility with others
proposals.
>
> However, about support, we do offer support for almost every proposal,
> be for testing, build fixes, etc. Pro actively in most cases, whether
> it is in our priorities list or not. My reasoning here is pretty
> simple, a stable PHP, for all supported platform or configuration is
> critical for the success of PHP. Cooperation too.
>
> > Lets think how to integrate them. I propose doing it in two steps
> (measuring
> > the performance and memory consumption difference).
> > If the degradation is going to be invisible, I won't object.
>
> The numbers are available already, using master and 5.5-5.6. We
> obviously do not have numbers using your patch but I do not think the
> delta will be any different.
>
phpng completely changes zval structure and reduces overhead of some
subsystems, so the numbers might be different.
Thanks. Dmitry.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org
>