Thanks very much for the report. I'm not sure what they mean by PIC specific. But glad to hear it worked for them.
Bill. On 4 December 2012 10:37, Jean-Pierre Flori <jpfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, December 3, 2012 11:58:39 PM UTC+1, Bill Hart wrote: >> >> That's great. Thanks for the report and your hard work tracking this >> down! I have added this issue to the mpir todo list, to be sorted out >> once the next release it done. >> >> As you will see from my announcement on mpir-devel, I have been >> distracted by something else for a couple of days. :-) >> >> Bill. >> > I saw that! > > To finish with the applenopic stuff, last reports from sage-devel: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sage-devel/R43tQAKI8gA/UW4SKqk5oVcJ > seem to indicate that the problem is really not with PIC code, but just the > @GOT construction. > Putting back the asm files involving specific PIC branches but not using > @GOT in the applenopic directory (IIRC it is add_n.asm and sub_n.asm) does > not prevent MPIR to build, nor to pass its test suite. > So maybe we should rename the directory to applenogot and put the few files > back in :) > Not that anybody will really care about the performance difference if there > is any. > > As I said, I've no experience in asm/PIC programming so cannot really say > this analysis is right, but that's just experimental guesses. > > Best, > JP -- 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.
