1 7:00 PM
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] Another disagreement between documentation and
> mpir.h
>
> I think the unsigned long int is correct this time. I see no reason
> why the remove function should return a number of bits.
>
> Bill.
>
> On 2 Ma
Hey Bill. I'm wondering if the documentation will be corrected?
Regards
Chris Saunders
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 7:00 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] Another disagreement between documentation and
mpir.h
I thin
I think the unsigned long int is correct this time. I see no reason
why the remove function should return a number of bits.
Bill.
On 2 May 2011 23:42, Chris wrote:
> Here is the documented API:
>
> mp_bitcnt_t mpz_remove (mpz t rop, mpz t op, mpz t f)
>
> from mpir.h:
>
> #define mpz_remove __gm
Here is the documented API:
mp_bitcnt_t mpz_remove (mpz t rop, mpz t op, mpz t f)
from mpir.h:
#define mpz_remove __gmpz_remove
__GMP_DECLSPEC unsigned long int mpz_remove __GMP_PROTO ((mpz_ptr,
mpz_srcptr, mpz_srcptr));
Notice mp_bitcnt_t from the docs and unsigned long int from the header.
