Richard Guenther writes:
> It was just a suggestion - if I'd implement it I would default to
> the compiler driver for the assembler call but allow a different
> assembler to be specified via configure.
That approach makes some sense to me. Assuming such a configure option
makes it the user's jo
bodr...@mail.dm.unipi.it writes:
Ciao,
Il Gio, 21 Giugno 2012 6:47 pm, bodr...@mail.dm.unipi.it ha scritto:
> Il Mer, 20 Giugno 2012 9:54 pm, Niels M�ller ha scritto:
>> For configure.in hacks, after a quick look I think what needs to be done
>> is to have --disable-assembly disable any
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
> But the failure mode is assembling assembler source - GMP should
> arrange to not use the compiler driver to assemble but to call
> an assembler directly for assembler source.
>
> Are you volunteering to do this
ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes:
I think it makes sense to have --disable-assembly disable *all* use of
assembly source files.
Maybe. I suppose the file now in question is used only by
tests/devel/try for detecting ABI breaches. Compiler generated code
should not need such test
Richard Guenther writes:
But the failure mode is assembling assembler source - GMP should
arrange to not use the compiler driver to assemble but to call
an assembler directly for assembler source.
Are you volunteering to do this work?
It will be a massive undertaking to bring things back
Ciao,
Il Gio, 21 Giugno 2012 6:47 pm, bodr...@mail.dm.unipi.it ha scritto:
> Il Mer, 20 Giugno 2012 9:54 pm, Niels Möller ha scritto:
>> For configure.in hacks, after a quick look I think what needs to be done
>> is to have --disable-assembly disable any setting of
>> HAVE_CALLING_CONVENTIONS (conf
Ciao,
Il Mer, 20 Giugno 2012 9:54 pm, Niels Möller ha scritto:
> I think it makes sense to have --disable-assembly disable *all* use of
> assembly source files.
Agreed.
> For configure.in hacks, after a quick look I think what needs to be done
> is to have --disable-assembly disable any setting
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-06-20 21:26:18 +0200, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
> > Let's first decide if it is worth spending time on. Just because
> > somebody writes a "compiler" doesn't mean taat we need to feed GMP to
> > it...
> >
> > Does anybody really need to use tc
Torbjorn Granlund writes:
> Let's first decide if it is worth spending time on. Just because
> somebody writes a "compiler" doesn't mean taat we need to feed GMP to
> it...
I think it makes sense to have --disable-assembly disable *all* use of
assembly source files.
For configure.in hacks, aft
On 2012-06-20 21:26:18 +0200, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
> Let's first decide if it is worth spending time on. Just because
> somebody writes a "compiler" doesn't mean taat we need to feed GMP to
> it...
>
> Does anybody really need to use tcc for compiling GMP?
Perhaps because of dependency. But
bodr...@mail.dm.unipi.it writes:
tmp-amd64call.s:120: error: unknown opcode 'movq'
...
Even with the "--disable-assembly" option given to configure, "make check"
is asking to the compiler to assemble a .s file. It didn't happen with the
"--host=none" option given to GMP-5.0 .
If you
This discussion begun on gmp-bugs, was moved to gmp-discuss... I reply to
gmp-devel to avoid confusions for the users, because the problem I've
found arise with the current head repository only.
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>
> Not to remove it, but to make it *optional*, i.e. to have a fallback
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
