At a talk I gave recently, one of the participants expressed quite a bit of surprise that MPIR really was intended to be a drop-in replacement for GMP. I think many people don't even really realise that.
As for the bit counts, I definitely want to support those. I've actually started doing that already in one of my other projects (FLINT-Lite). Similarly, wherever they have dropped overlap requirements, that is good for us too. And to the extent that the new functionality is not too hard to support, why not. But let's see what people say. Bill. 2010/1/9 Cactus <rieman...@googlemail.com>: > Now that GMP 5 has been released, we will have to make a decision on > whether to make changes to MPIR or ive up GMP compatibility. An > outline of the features in GMP 5 is given here: > > http://gmplib.org/gmp5.0.html > > There is a new type used for bit counnts and a small number of user > visible functions that we don't have in MPIR. I don't think that any > of these will be hard to provide but I may be wrong. GMP 5 also > changes the specifications of several functions in respect of operand > overlaps. > > I would be interested in people's views on how they would like to see > MPIR evolve in this respect. > > Brian > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mpir-devel" group. > To post to this group, send email to mpir-de...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en. > > > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
