Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes: >> I think one should have the possibility to choose between fat and >> non-fat builds, with the same ABI. There's going to be a small extra >> call overhead in the fat case. > > Disabling the optional architectures would be possible but reducing the > call overhead in the "thin" case would require a lot of ifdefs. It > would keep the external api intact, but the internals would look ugly.
Even if fat is default on x86, the non-fat case is important for other architectures. I think the complexity will be manageable, and most of it will be in the configure script and assembly code, not in the C files. > This is not guaranteed. For example AES-NI and padlock require the > AES key to be aligned to 16-byte boundaries, something that the > current structures do not offer. At least that's an ABI change which is harmless for other implementations. A different question is how to portably tell the C compiler that a certain structure must be 16-byte aligned. > In any case, I just noticed that for the x86-64 you don't really need > to detect SSE2, it is just there by default. That's my understanding as well. You can test for it, but it's present in all existing x86_64 cpus. /nisse -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
