Torbjorn Granlund wrote: > I started a page: http://gmplib.org/devel/incompatibility.html > > We might want to classify incompatibilities as source, binary, and both. > > I have not listed obsolete functions. The cost of retaining obsolete > function compatibility is very low; the temptation to remove such > compatibility for the sake of purity should perhaps be resisted.
My recollection is that gmp_errno was not thread-safe, not just obsolete, and that that was a reason for getting rid of it. Also, I seem to remember there were plans to make a new version of mpz_nextprime accepting a random state and the number of M-R tests, and of mpz_probab_prime_p accepting a random state. Of course, these could just be new functions. _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
