Within the Sage project, we discovered several issues with the
CPU/CFLAGS/MPN_PATH configuration code in MPIR-2.4.0. The code mostly
works well, but there are a few things I would like to change.
I would also like to add a configuration option to build a generic
binary meaning one which would
On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:14:51 +0200
Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
What is the reason that MPIR uses yasm to build *some* of its assembly
files? It seems that most assembly files are built using gcc, i.e.
the system assembler. Why use two different assemblers?
Originally it was
On 22 May 2012 10:10, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Within the Sage project, we discovered several issues with the
CPU/CFLAGS/MPN_PATH configuration code in MPIR-2.4.0. The code mostly
works well, but there are a few things I would like to change.
I would also like to add a
I agree with that explanation. However, I should add that it is
largely for historical reasons.
MPIR originally planned to support MSVC out-of-the-box (as did Sage
once). One reason for this is that many Windows developers use MSVC.
Brian Gladman has been successfully providing that ability
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:37:26 +0100
Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
I agree with that explanation. However, I should add that it is
largely for historical reasons.
MPIR originally planned to support MSVC out-of-the-box (as did Sage
once). One reason for this is that many Windows
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:19:52 +0100
Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well spotted. Indeed, MinGW64 uses the Windows assembly code, not the
linux assembly code. So indeed, for MinGW support, we probably have
little choice but to use a portable assembler. So it looks like we are
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:53:07 +0100
Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2012 16:37, Brian Gladman b...@gladman.plus.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:19:52 +0100
Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well spotted. Indeed, MinGW64 uses the Windows assembly code,
On Tuesday, 22 May 2012, Brian Gladman b...@gladman.plus.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:53:07 +0100
Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2012 16:37, Brian Gladman b...@gladman.plus.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:19:52 +0100
Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com
On Tuesday, 22 May 2012, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 22 May 2012, Brian Gladman b...@gladman.plus.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:53:07 +0100
Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2012 16:37, Brian Gladman b...@gladman.plus.com wrote:
On
On 2012-05-22 15:37, Bill Hart wrote:
We could then
ditch building Yasm on Linux, which would save some headaches for
Sage.
I don't really think that yasm is a problem for Sage. It's true that
sometimes a Sage build might build because of a problem with yasm, but
it's more because MPIR/YASM is
10 matches
Mail list logo
