Re: [VOTE][RFC] Integer Semantics

you already made silent break for N << 64 and N >> 64, but it may be explained as more consistent behaviour. I don't see a big difference with negative shifts. The real thing that I don't like - is a "boolean" result. Warning is not a big problem. Thanks. Dmitry. On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: > > On 16 Sep 2014, at 10:16, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > > > Shifts by negative number may make sense. (N << -1) => (N >> 1) > > At least receiving "false" from shift is not very pleasant. > > The problem is that changing from the current behaviour (undefined in C, > but typically a shift by (PHP_INT_MAX - $bits)) to do what you’d expect > (shift in the opposite direction) would be a silent BC break. I think it’s > better to just stop it altogether and raise an E_WARNING, where it’s at > least obvious something went wrong, than change this behaviour silently. > > > In the patch you use SIZEOF_LONG. It probably should be changed to > > SIZEOF_ZEND_LONG. > > Will fix, thanks for spotting that. > > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > > >