Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <n.mavrogiannopou...@gmail.com> writes: > Why not a big assembly function that contains everything?
Two reasons: 1. To make the fat binary thing optional, just using a simple cpu-specific file when the cpu is known at compile time. 2. In case we'd like to fallback to the C implementation for some function. >> Or use a "master file" for each function, say arm/fat/foo.asm, which >> includes the other files and makes the right thing happen. > > That could work too. I'm leaning towards this, at least for a start. We'll see when I get time to play with this. >> I clearly see the need for a runtime test for neon. Say, >> --enable-arm-neon=fat or a more general --enable-fat. > > I like the name :) I think the latter makes more sense if it is to be used > for x86 as well. --enable-fat is what gmp uses. And "fat binaries/libraries" is almost standard terminology. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list nettle-bugs@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
