On Monday 04 July 2011 20:04:02 Cactus wrote:
> I was worried about the MSVC command line build but I now realise that this
> does do a FAT build (at least I don't think it does). I have translated
> fat_entry.asm for YASM (an interesting exercise!) but I am not sure it is
> useful since some of t
On Monday 04 July 2011 20:13:15 Cactus wrote:
> Sorry about the bad editing above - it shoulkd read:
>
> I was worried about the MSVC command line build but I now realise that this
> DOESN'T do a FAT build (at least I don't think it does).
>
Yep , it don't
> Brian
--
You received this message
On Monday 04 July 2011 20:21:46 Cactus wrote:
> Looks good!
>
> I notice that there is new k8 assembler. Is this going to be repeated for
> the Intel architectures?
Yep , the current code is already an improvement on Intel , but I can do
better eg the multiple carry handling.
> Is it stable
Looks good!
I notice that there is new k8 assembler. Is this going to be repeated for
the Intel architectures? Is it stable enough to do conversion for Windows?
Brian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To view this discu
Sorry about the bad editing above - it shoulkd read:
I was worried about the MSVC command line build but I now realise that this
DOESN'T do a FAT build (at least I don't think it does).
Brian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To v
I was worried about the MSVC command line build but I now realise that this
does do a FAT build (at least I don't think it does). I have translated
fat_entry.asm for YASM (an interesting exercise!) but I am not sure it is
useful since some of the symbols it uses are alien to Windows (WIndows
d
On Thursday 30 June 2011 20:06:22 Cactus wrote:
> On Jun 30, 5:17 pm, Jason wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 June 2011 16:28:41 Cactus wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 4:14 pm, Jason wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 30 June 2011 16:07:37 Cactus wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 30, 3:00 pm, Jason wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday
On Friday 01 July 2011 15:41:01 Mariah Lenox wrote:
> mpir-2.4.0 fails 'make check' on ultrasparc2-sun-solaris2.8. This is
> a regression from mpir-2.3.1 where 'make check' passes all tests.
> On ultrasparc3-sun-solaris2.10, mpir-2.4.0 passes all tests. I did the
> build with
>
> % gcc -v
> Usin
