On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Cactus <rieman...@gmail.com> wrote: >> To reinforce that these new types are MPIR specific, should they be called >> mpir_ui/mpir_si? > > I had exactly the same idea a few days ago - I am inclined to do this. A couple more ideas...
Can we define a macro (HAVE_MPIR_SI ?) to unambiguously detect if mpir_si/mpir_ui is available? For better backwards compatibility, should mpir_si/mpir_ui always default to long unless USE_MPIR_SI (or some other descriptive name) is defined before mpir.h/gmp.h is included? The only compatibility issue I encounterd was trying to explicitely get a long on 64-bit Windows. I had to downcast the results of gmp_get_si(). Would it make sense to add mpir_get_slong/mpri_get_ulong? Case > > Brian > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mpir-devel" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mpir-devel/-/w3ZXpLZGZgcJ. > > To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
