On 9/7/2013 08:44, dw wrote: > > However, if that's not acceptable, perhaps there is an alternative. If > the requirement I'm violating here is simply that these specific > functions must be able to support not being inlined, then I believe > simply changing them from "FORCEINLINE" to "inline" would satisfy this > requirement. It seems like having them in the library is still > redundant. Would this change make the deletions acceptable? >
He probably wants a fallback for when headers are not included. Yes these are lower performance counterparts, will be used in the worst case scenario only. > Thirdly, if the requirement is really that these functions must exist in > the .a file, then just let me know. While I don't understand why (and > I'd like to), I'm prepared to do it anyway. I would still need to fix > the library version of MultiplyExtract128, but if this is what I need to > do, just say so. > > I'm obviously not going to check anything in that isn't approved. But > there are bug fixes and performance improvements here that I think are > worth including in v3. Let me know how I should proceed. > No problem, just send your patches for review. For now, just concentrate on the bug fixes, performance improvement can always come later.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
