Re: 64-bit integers and 64-bit string length patch is ready to be merged

On 21 Aug 2014, at 21:49, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > I am also concerned that we now have zend_uint_t (a 64-bit integer type) > and zend_uint (a 32-bit integer type). Notice the difference? Yes, it's the > missing _t. > > I would appreciate it if we could consider the following naming convention: > > * zend_(u)int - 32 bit integer type > * zend_(u)long - 64 bit integer type (on 64 bit systems) > > This retains the original meaning of the type, with the tweak that > zend_(u)long will be 64bit on LLP64 systems as well. This avoids the > confusion of having two types that only differ by a _t suffix and have > totally different meanings. It also removes any need to rename everything > from LONG to INT. I was wondering if zend_uint was still 32-bit like I thought it was. I guess I mistook zend_uint_t for zend_uint, which backs up your (implied?) point about confusion. Your proposal sounds like a great idea, I’d be very in favour of this. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/