It's true these are not used much. But at this point we definitely don't want to break strict compatibility with GMP.
I don't have an opinion on the other options though. Perhaps someone else has something meaningful... Bill. 2008/11/29 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Now I notice that some of the existing mpn fn's have alternate entry points > eg mpn_add_n and mpn_add_nc where you have an extra parameter to specify a > carry in . > I can do this to all the new K8 asm fn's , it pretty trivial. It just a > question of how to call them , for example > > .align 16 > mpn_add_n: > mov $0,carryreg > .align 16 > mpn_add_nc: > here is the usual stuff > > Here we either align it and have to skip over 16 bytes (which is at least 1 > extra cycle) or we dont bother with the alignment for the _nc version , and > have a penalty for an unaligned fn call (which costs what?) . > > The other way is to just have mpn_add_nc , and make mpn_add_n a macro with a > carry in of zero.This would break strict compatibility with gmp. > > Or perhaps not bother , as their not used much. > > Any thoughts? on this , preferances? > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
