-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:37 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
Hi Brian,
I have to go out, but ran a quick test. I get the following:
libtool: compile: gcc -std=gnu99
uess misc.c needs config.h.
Bill.
On 13 October 2012 11:28, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:48 AM
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> I've repla
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:48 AM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
I've replaced it with a macro. The poor man's portable inline.
This seems to work (after correcting a bug i
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:48 AM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
I've replaced it with a macro. The poor man's portable inline.
This seems to work (after correcting a bug i
I've replaced it with a macro. The poor man's portable inline.
This seems to work (after correcting a bug in my first attempt). So
hopefully that bug is knocked on the head.
Once Brian is happy that Windows is doing what it is supposed to, and
I've removed the internal symbol conflicts with flint
Bill Hart wrote:
On 7 October 2012 04:10, leif wrote:
With GCC 4.7.0 (and CFLAGS="-O0 -finline-functions -fschedule-insns", since
this version is severely broken on Itanium) I get:
libtool: link: ranlib .libs/libtests.a
libtool: link: ( cd ".libs" && rm -f "libtests.la" && ln -s "../libtests.l
Ah nice. This fix of course causes all sorts of multiple symbol clashes on ia64.
Back to the drawing board.
Bill.
On 13 October 2012 00:10, Bill Hart wrote:
> I decided to just leave it where it was and define it __inline__ on
> *nix and __inline on MSVC. Apparently this is not completely porta
legroups.com
>>> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>>>
>>> On 12 October 2012 23:06, Brian Gladman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message----- From: Bill Hart
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:58
Bill Hart wrote:
On 12 October 2012 23:19, Brian Gladman wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:11 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
On 12 October 2012 23:06, Brian Gladman wrote
I decided to just leave it where it was and define it __inline__ on
*nix and __inline on MSVC. Apparently this is not completely portable,
but we can deal with any issues if and when they arise. I suspect
there will only be issues on machines whose vendors went out of
business years ago.
Bill.
On
On 12 October 2012 23:27, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:23 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> On 12 October 2012 23:19, Brian Gladman wrote
On 7 October 2012 04:10, leif wrote:
> With GCC 4.7.0 (and CFLAGS="-O0 -finline-functions -fschedule-insns", since
> this version is severely broken on Itanium) I get:
>
> libtool: link: ranlib .libs/libtests.a
> libtool: link: ( cd ".libs" && rm -f "libtests.la" && ln -s "../libtests.la"
> "libte
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:23 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
On 12 October 2012 23:19, Brian Gladman wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11
On 12 October 2012 23:19, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:11 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> On 12 October 2012 23:06, Brian Gladman wrote
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:11 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
On 12 October 2012 23:06, Brian Gladman wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10
On 12 October 2012 23:06, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:58 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> [snip]
>
> There are a couple more inst
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:58 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
[snip]
There are a couple more instances of _MSC_VER guards in mpirxx.h. Did
you only mean to change two of them
On 12 October 2012 22:52, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:46 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> [snip]
>
>> ===
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:46 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
[snip]
If we want a test for this we can add one to the test suite and only
invoke
it on
On 12 October 2012 22:37, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:29 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> On 12 October 2012 22:27, Brian Gladman wrote
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:29 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
On 12 October 2012 22:27, Brian Gladman wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10
On 12 October 2012 22:27, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:20 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> On 12 October 2012 22:13, Brian Gladman wrote
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:20 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
On 12 October 2012 22:13, Brian Gladman wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10
On 12 October 2012 22:13, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:05 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> I have
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 10:05 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
[snip]
I have a feeling we need to go back to some underlying principles here.
So for a start, intmax_t and uintmax_t on
On 12 October 2012 21:57, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:45 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> Going back to stdint.
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:45 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
[snip]
Going back to stdint.h, I think the assumption is that this needs to be
included by the user before the mpirxx.h
iginal Message- From: Bill Hart
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:15 PM
>>
>> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>>
>> I believe these only get defined if you first define some macro.
>>
>>
On 12 October 2012 21:22, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:15 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> I believe these only get defined if you fi
oglegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>>
>> Brian Gladman wrote:
>>>
>>> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:15 PM
>>> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
>>>
wrote:
> -Original Message- From: leif
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:32 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> Brian Gladman wrote:
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
>> Sent:
-Original Message-
From: leif
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:32 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
Brian Gladman wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:15 PM
To: mpir-devel
Brian Gladman wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:15 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
I believe these only get defined if you first define some macro.
On 12 October 2012 21:13, leif wrote
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:15 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
I believe these only get defined if you first define some macro.
On 12 October 2012 21:13, leif wrote:
Bill Hart wrote
n't work. For C++ we must include stdint.h and not
>>> limits.h.
>>>
>>> Bill.
>>>
>>> On 12 October 2012 20:32, Brian Gladman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart Sent: Friday, October 12,
>>>> 20
r C++ we must include stdint.h and not limits.h.
Bill.
On 12 October 2012 20:32, Brian Gladman wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bill Hart Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012
8:30 PM To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0
alpha1 released
Oh no it doesn't
> On 12 October 2012 20:56, Bill Hart wrote:
>>> It appears to be defined in limits.h on *nix if you use C, but
>>> stdint.h if you use C++.
>>>
>>> Bill.
>>>
>>> On 12 October 2012 20:55, Brian Gladman wrote:
>>>> -Origi
Bill.
>>
>> On 12 October 2012 20:55, Brian Gladman wrote:
>>> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012
>>> 8:44 PM To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0
>>> alpha1 released
>>> Yes
; -Original Message- From: Bill Hart Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012
>> 8:44 PM To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0
>> alpha1 released
>> Yes, but you can't include limits.h in mpirxx.h. If you do, it will
>> screw up on linux. So w
It appears to be defined in limits.h on *nix if you use C, but
stdint.h if you use C++.
Bill.
On 12 October 2012 20:55, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012
> 8:44 PM To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:44 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
Yes, but you can't include limits.h in mpirxx.h. If you do, it will
screw up on linux. So we will just have to add some
On 12 October 2012 20:39, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:34 PM
>
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
> That actually won't work. For C++ we must in
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:39 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
Another problem is in the test functions for the ux/sx functions, we
use %lld in the format specifier for an intmax_t. This is
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:34 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
That actually won't work. For C++ we must include stdint.h and not limits.h.
On Windows LLONG_M
nt.h and not limits.h.
>
> Bill.
>
> On 12 October 2012 20:32, Brian Gladman wrote:
>> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012
>> 8:30 PM To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0
>> alpha1 released
>> Oh
That actually won't work. For C++ we must include stdint.h and not limits.h.
Bill.
On 12 October 2012 20:32, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012
> 8:30 PM To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:30 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
Oh no it doesn't, I made a mistake. It has #if defined( _STDINT_H ) ||
defined ( _STDINT_H_ ) || defined ( _S
; On 12 October 2012 20:24, Bill Hart wrote:
>> Yeah, I've just done it now.
>>
>> Bill.
>>
>> On 12 October 2012 20:23, Brian Gladman wrote:
>>> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18 PM
>>
Bill Hart
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18 PM
>> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
>>
>> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>>
>> I think we should test if LLONG_MAX is defined. This actually doesn't
>> tell us if long long exists, but
Yeah, I've just done it now.
Bill.
On 12 October 2012 20:23, Brian Gladman wrote:
> -Original Message- From: Bill Hart
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18 PM
> To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
>
> Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
>
>
-Original Message-
From: Bill Hart
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 8:18 PM
To: mpir-devel@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpir-devel] MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1 released
I think we should test if LLONG_MAX is defined. This actually doesn't
tell us if long long exists, but tells us if long
I think we should test if LLONG_MAX is defined. This actually doesn't
tell us if long long exists, but tells us if long long exists AND the
system long long's are fully c99 compliant.
Then if LLONG_MAX is not defined but MAXINT_MAX is defined and not
equal to LONG_MAX, then we should define maxint
Whoah, we have some major issues here.
mpirxx.h uses HAVE_LONG_LONG. But this is defined in MPIR's internal
config.h, which is no use, as the end user will not have included
this.
Moreover, I can't find where stdint.h is being included in mpirxx.h. I
think it must be designed so that only when it
Damn, I am wrong about the last bit. You can't use sizeof in
preprocessor directives!
But now I am looking at this code and wondering if it is even
necessary. When do we expect intmax_t to not be either long or long
long. And we have code for both of the above already.
Bill.
On 12 October 2012 1
I think I have essentially gotten to the bottom of this bug. And it is
pretty subtle indeed!
The issue is nominative versus structural typing. Consider the
following two structs:
struct mystruct1
{
int d;
double t;
}
struct mystruct2
{
int d;
double t;
}
Structurally, these are the
On 7 October 2012 04:10, leif wrote:
> On Linux IA64 (SLES 10, Itanium) in contrast, I got the following failures:
>
> With the (fairly old) "native" GCC 4.1.2, building the testsuite fails:
>
> make[4]: Entering directory
> `/home/leif/src/mpir-2.6.0-alpha1-build.iras-gcc-4.1.2/tests/cxx'
> g+
Bill Hart wrote:
Hi all,
It is with pleasure that we release MPIR 2.6.0 alpha1. The source and
documentation can be downloaded at http://mpir.org/
This release contains a new FFT, support for intmax_t integers, a
Python build generator and various bug fixes.
The alpha version has been tested o
57 matches
Mail list logo
