On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:19:52 +0100 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well spotted. Indeed, MinGW64 uses the Windows assembly code, not the > linux assembly code. So indeed, for MinGW support, we probably have > little choice but to use a portable assembler. So it looks like we are > stuck with Yasm, unless we wanted to duplicate all the Windows > assembly code (something I personally don't want to do). Hence the problem since I am explicitly NOT supporting mingw64 - if it works with my assembler, this is by luck rather than design. To be honest I was content while we all worked with YASM on BOTH Unix/Linux and Windows since this meant that most of our assembler code is common and in Intel syntax (mostly only prologues and epilogues change). But if Unix/Linux support moves to GAS (as it seems to be doing), I then have to convert the assembler code for Windows anyway so it then makes sense for me to use the native Windows assembler (MASM) and avoid the need to install YASM (which does not work as well as MASM). But can masm64 use MASM as its assembler (my guess is no)? It is really worth emphasising that, unless either you or Jason are supporting the mingw64 build of MPIR, it is NOT supported. And I don't want to find that I am providing this support by default. 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-devel@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.
