On Aug 28, 11:56 am, "jason" <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cactus" <rieman...@gmail.com> > To: "mpir-devel" <mpir-devel@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 10:27 AM > Subject: [mpir-devel] Re: mingw64 > > On Aug 28, 9:59 am, "jason" <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > I think I know why the mingw64 dll builds fail , for multiple functions > > files ie aors_err2_n.asm , in the MSVC build yasm emits both functions in > > a single "unit" , whereas under mingw64 we create two links add and sub > > versions (like we do for unix) , and also yasm still emits both functions > > , so we end up with two copys. The same must happen in the static build , > > but it doesn't seem to matter? > > I was planning to get rid of such complications ( or rather move them to > > development machines only , much like autotools generates Makefile.in) , a > > small script should easily take of it. > > I wwould be very happy to make several changes that are related to > this issue, all of which would make all the Windows builds much > easier: > > 1. All files emit only one routine and only one symbol (this would > expand the source for some 'carry in' and 'no carry in' variants); > ----------------------- > I was hoping to keep files with multiple entry points , but yeah , I cant > see how we can do it in general. For the add_n and add_nc we could do it > with macros , but for the divide it's a bit harder , and we might need to > maintain the function version for full backwards dll compatibility. > -------------- > 2. A strict equality between C and assembler file names and the > symbols they emit (ignoring the prefix); > 3. A new extension (i.e not c, cc, as, asm, ..) for files that are > not compiled directly but are included in other files. > ---------------------- > makes sense > --------------------- > I don't think it matters issuing HAVE_NATIVE defines for all assembler > symbols even if they aare complete C replacements so we can (I think) > ignore this. > ------------------------ > I think we may have to keep some , mainly for those combined functions that > would require temp space if we dont have a native one
Sorry Jason - I think I phrased this badly. I wasn't suggesting that we remove any but rather just issuing HAVE_NATIVE defines for all assembler code symbols on the assumption that symbols from files that are complete replacements for C files will exist but won't be used. But, maybe I am wrong about this? Interestingly a further simplification of the Windows build would be to add a guard in C files with complete assembler replacements to remove all the code - they would then be included but be empty and I would not have to manually exclude them as I do now. 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.
