On Friday 13 August 2010 17:13:59 Cactus wrote: > On Aug 13, 4:15 pm, Jason <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > > I changed the files > > pre_divrem_1.* to preinv_divrem_1.* > > pre_mod_1.* to preinv_mod_1.* > > mode1o.* to modexact_1c_odd.* > > > > and removed the autotools bumf that went with it > > > > This nearly completes the removal of the old fat file system support , > > there are a few little bits left , but they are not worth doing at the > > moment as we may want to change those bit anyway later. > > > > Jason > > > > On Friday 13 August 2010 14:52:03 Jason wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I've changed the files > > > divebyfobm1.* to divexact_byfobm1.* > > > dive_1.* to divexact_1.* > > > divebyff.* to divexact_byff.* > > > diveby3.* to divexact_by3c.* > > > > > > and I renamed the function divexact_fobm1 to divexact_byfobm1 > > > > > > I not touched any files in the build.vc* directorys , but I did do the > > > x86w and x86_64w directorys > > > > > > I've not changed the test file names to match ie we still have > > > t-dive_byff.c rather than t-divexact_byff.c > > > > > > More to come > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > On Friday 13 August 2010 13:34:42 Jason wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > I going to start on these autotools simplifications now , and > > > > hopefully the code is clean enough to finish it . > > > > > > > > I appear to have my Windows box back alive and well , and after > > > > having some trouble with installation of Windows 64 (and 32) and > > > > MSVC , I should be able to give the Mingw64 (and 32) a go. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 27 July 2010 11:31:55 Jason wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 27 July 2010 11:16:25 Bill Hart wrote: > > > > > > On 27 July 2010 11:09, Jason <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just thinking about the next bit of autotools simplifications , > > > > > > > then these bits are all interconnected in some way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Support for fat file systems(8+3 names) , ie we have a file > > > > > > > mpn/dive_1.c which gives us the function divexact_1 . We > > > > > > > already dont support fat file systems as we already have files > > > > > > > with names longer than 8+3 chars , so this is no great loss. > > > > > > > So I propose to change the file names to match the function > > > > > > > names. > > > > > > > > > > > > This definitely sounds like a long overdue improvement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some files ie x86/aors_n.asm or mpn/generic/popham.c provide > > > > > > > for two functions , and the "decision" is made at compile time > > > > > > > , I propose we move the "decision" to "autotools" time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean have two symbolic links to the same file with > > > > > > different flags for compilation? > > > > > > > > > > Basically the same setup we have at the moment , but when we run > > > > > autotools , we run "our setup script" instead , which runs > > > > > autotools AND "splits" aors_n.asm into add_n.asm AND sub_n.asm , > > > > > that way the build system doesn't need the compilation FLAGS , ie > > > > > the build system is now one file=one function. The complication > > > > > can still exist , but are confined to our development machines , > > > > > so we could write it in python(or whatever , C?) > > > > > > > > > > > > There are lists of functions that have to be filled in various > > > > > > > Makefile.am 's , with the above changes we should be able to > > > > > > > automate it , and I think the Windows build could benefit from > > > > > > > the code that can list the files/functions. It would nice if > > > > > > > this could handle the function prototypes in the header files > > > > > > > as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > This would be nice. > > > > > > > > > > There are of course files which can have multiple entry points , ie > > > > > mpn_add_n and mpn_add_nc , we would need to handle them , and I > > > > > think there are file which have a few functions in them (for > > > > > tuning only?) . Have to think about that.... > > > > > > > > > > > > I need to think about this some more , dont want to start it > > > > > > > and get half way through , and realize I should of done it a > > > > > > > different way :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > 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. > > I've updated the Visual Studio 2010 builds to account for these > changes and > tested the nehalem library build. I have not tested the other builds > but I > would be surprised if they didn't work. > > I have also updated the Visual Studio 2008 builds in a way that I > think > will work but I no longer have Visual Studio 2008 installed so I have > not > tested these at all. > > If people want to continue using the Visual Studio 2008 build files, > we will need a volunteer to maintain them. > > Brian
I can test VS2008 , as that is all that I have , and if the changes are simple enough I can maintain them , but I'm not at all familiar with MSVC , and I don't want to be :( Jason -- 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.
