2009/12/21 Bill Hart :
> 2009/12/21 Dan Grayson :
>> Right. The proposal would be to declare that a bug. Then we would
>> have to fix it. Fixing it would mean rewriting mpn_lshift so it
>> crashes or returns the right answer with misaligned limbs. If it had
>> been written that way in the first
x86_64 was introduced less than 10 years ago. It is likely that the
assumptions you made then were valid then. Note that on 32 bit
machines you only need 4 byte alignment. It is only the x86_64 ABI
which requires alignment to 8 bytes.
Bill.
2009/12/21 Dan Grayson :
> The memory allocator provided
2009/12/21 Dan Grayson :
> Right. The proposal would be to declare that a bug. Then we would
> have to fix it. Fixing it would mean rewriting mpn_lshift so it
> crashes or returns the right answer with misaligned limbs. If it had
> been written that way in the first place, we wouldn't be having
sizeof(void *) will be fine on most systems including all the
important ones we support, as MPIR usually tries to select a limb
which is either long or long long depending on what is available, and
this is the size of a pointer on all the important systems I am aware
of.
Bill.
2009/12/21 Dan Gray
But as I pointed out. Fixing this "bug" would mean more than rewriting
lshift. We'd have to potentially rewrite all the functions in MPIR.
Furthermore we'd have to rewrite the entire test suite to certify that
each and every function obeyed these new rules. Then we'd have to
figure out when the C c
The memory allocator provided with Singular-Factory is in the file
libcfmem.a, and the routines are called getBlock, freeBlock, and
reallocBlock. I copied the routines more than 10 years ago and
continue to use the modified copy. I may even have destroyed 8 byte
alignment then while optimizing it
Right. The proposal would be to declare that a bug. Then we would
have to fix it. Fixing it would mean rewriting mpn_lshift so it
crashes or returns the right answer with misaligned limbs. If it had
been written that way in the first place, we wouldn't be having this
discussion, because I would
