-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.9k
zend_compiler, ...: use uint8_t
instead of zend_uchar
#10621
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be safe on theoretical architectures which don't have uint8_t, this commit uses uint_least8_t instead, which is guaranteed to be supported.
We already make extensive use of uint8_t, you can assume it exists.
Especially your changes to the zval structure are outright incorrect if the type doesn't an 8 bit size.
Okay for me, it's just that @derickr felt it was important to point out to me that these types are optional. If that's not important at all for the rest of you, I can ignore his comment out it from now on. |
be3b1f6
to
1fc953a
Compare
Changed to |
Zend/zend_stream.h
Outdated
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ typedef struct _zend_file_handle { | |||
} handle; | |||
zend_string *filename; | |||
zend_string *opened_path; | |||
zend_uchar type; /* packed zend_stream_type */ | |||
uint8_t type; /* packed zend_stream_type */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
uint8_t type; /* packed zend_stream_type */ | |
uint8_t type; /* packed zend_stream_type */ |
1fc953a
to
1b907cf
Compare
PHP 8 switched to C99, but did not documented that anywhere. After @derickr rejected a pull request on timelib (derickr/timelib#141 (comment)) because my suggested change removed compile-time checks for fixed-width integer types, pointing out that they are optional in the C99 standard, @nikic disagreed with using `uint_least8_t` instead (which is guaranteed to be available), stating that "We already make extensive use of uint8_t, you can assume it exists" (php#10621 (review)). In order to avoid such confusion in the future, let's document this architecture requirement.
…0631) PHP 8 switched to C99, but did not documented that anywhere. After @derickr rejected a pull request on timelib (derickr/timelib#141 (comment)) because my suggested change removed compile-time checks for fixed-width integer types, pointing out that they are optional in the C99 standard, @nikic disagreed with using `uint_least8_t` instead (which is guaranteed to be available), stating that "We already make extensive use of uint8_t, you can assume it exists" (#10621 (review)). In order to avoid such confusion in the future, let's document this architecture requirement.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
1b907cf
to
0bfc9fb
Compare
Rebased & fixed conflict. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM now
uint_least8_t
instead of zend_uchar
uint8_t
instead of zend_uchar
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
`zend_uchar` suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead. On all architectures currently supported by PHP, `zend_uchar` and `uint8_t` are identical. This change is only about code readability.
zend_uchar
suggests that the value is an ASCII character, but here, it's about very small integers. This is misleading, so let's use a C99 integer instead.On all architectures currently supported by PHP,
zend_uchar
anduint_t
are identical. This change is only about code readability.(See #10597 (comment) for a discussion; @mvorisek)