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

On Aug 21, 2014 10:49 PM, "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am against merging this with the long->int rename everywhere. This seems like change for the sake of change. It is accepted and ready to be merged. > 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) The original patch used int32 and int64, _t. Was rejected because too much changes. I was even more strict in the very first version by using only stdint types and no alias or random names. Rejected as well. Long means absolutely nothing in term of integer size. We should ban its usage. So I am against anything using long. That being said: - patch will be merged. Most likely tomorrow - if minor tweaks like the uint one you refer are necessary, and that one makes sense, it can be done later Now, I asked everyone to stop applying or trying to apply double standards. Thanks. Cheers, Pierre