Re: [mpir-devel] Further Changes to the Windows Build

2009-12-03 Thread Gonzalo Tornaria
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Case Vanhorsen wrote: > The MS-SDK compiler selected p3 as the CPU type. But the actual CPU is > a Core2 Duo. The CPU type is correctly detected when I do a 64-bit > build. Check out this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel/browse_thread/thread/c31f8

Re: [mpir-devel] Further Changes to the Windows Build

2009-12-03 Thread Case Vanhorsen
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Bill Hart wrote: > Hi Case, > > Thanks for those figures. Can you let me know what you mean by > "digits"? Do you mean limbs or decimal digits? Decimal digits. > > The 32 bit multiply times are a surprise to me. I can think of no good > reason for the comparison to

Re: [mpir-devel] Further Changes to the Windows Build

2009-12-03 Thread Bill Hart
Hi Case, Thanks for those figures. Can you let me know what you mean by "digits"? Do you mean limbs or decimal digits? The 32 bit multiply times are a surprise to me. I can think of no good reason for the comparison to be that differentiated. The assembly code should be very similar, if not the s

Re: [mpir-devel] Further Changes to the Windows Build

2009-12-02 Thread Case Vanhorsen
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Bill Hart wrote: > I fully agree with this perspective. Most users do still seem to be > using 32 bit Windows. But those who are concerned about performance > have access to 64 bit machines. The main thing is for performance not > to suck so badly on 32 bit Windows

Re: [mpir-devel] Further Changes to the Windows Build

2009-12-02 Thread Bill Hart
I fully agree with this perspective. Most users do still seem to be using 32 bit Windows. But those who are concerned about performance have access to 64 bit machines. The main thing is for performance not to suck so badly on 32 bit Windows that development is difficult to do. I actually don't thi

Re: [mpir-devel] Further Changes to the Windows Build

2009-12-02 Thread Jeff Gilchrist
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Cactus wrote: > In order to reduce the complexity of the Windows build projects, I am > now inclined to split the mpir Windows build solution into two > separate build solutions, the first for 32-bit builds and the second > for 64-bit builds.  I would be interested

[mpir-devel] Further Changes to the Windows Build

2009-12-02 Thread Cactus
In order to bring the Windows build into closer alignment with that on Linux, I have renamed all references to 'amd64' in the Windows build files to 'k8'. I have done this in preparation for adding a new x64 'nehalem' build project for Windows. In order to reduce the complexity of the Windows bui