Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> writes:
The patch set is intended to be fully bisectable. Each patch in sequence
should work. That said, I can't think of any real value in keeping the
patches
separate in the final commit. The intermediate steps are not useful.
Thanks.
> I don't see any problem which needs addressing. I am perfectly happy
> with how debugging works with the asm code now.
Matter of taste, I suppose.
I didn't realise the deleted .s file problem. I always do
(cd mpn; m4 file.asm)>x.s && gcc -g x.s ...
when I debug, since that effetively zeros turnaround time.
Perhaps we should stop deleting the .s file?
I generally do that with the assembler itself. E.g.
call 1f
.subsection 2
1: mov (%esp), %ebx
ret
.previous
addl $_GLOBAL_OFFSET_POINTER_, %ebx
Lucky you to have a powerful assembler all the time...
I actually really like m4. It is tiny yet really powerful, being Turing
complete. A friend of mine implemented a bignum library in m4, inspired
by GMP's m4 usage, I think. Convinced of m4's greatness now? :-)
--
Torbjörn
_______________________________________________
gmp-devel mailing list
gmp-devel@gmplib.org
http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
