Marc Glisse writes:
Fixed. It was unhappy about (-13) << 2. I am a bit surprised it
doesn't complain about (-13) >> 2 on the next line, we'll see if it
ever becomes an issue.
This must be a compiler problem. At least in C, shifting negative
integers is undefined.
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
Fixed. It was unhappy about (-13) << 2. I am a bit surprised it
doesn't complain about (-13) >> 2 on the next line, we'll see if it
ever becomes an issue.
This must be a compiler problem. At least in
Marc Glisse writes:
Surprisingly, shifting negative numbers left is undefined, while
shifting them right it implementation-defined.
I fail to appreciate the difference between these definitions of
undefinedness.
I assume "undefined" means that the computer will not
t...@gmplib.org (Torbjörn Granlund) writes:
> I suppose it also implies a slight computation overhead
> to check size + low limb for the return value.
Slight enough to be reasonably for the mpz-layer, I think.
One could consider doing that only when the gcd pointer is NULL, and
otherwise
t...@gmplib.org (Torbjörn Granlund) writes:
> This sort of things probably below here:
> https://gmplib.org/devel/incompatibility.html
Done. I also added an entry for _mpz_newalloc, while editing that file.
www-update failed, though:
[nisse@shell /var/hg]$ ./www-update
Checking out www.
ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes:
www-update failed, though:
[nisse@shell /var/hg]$ ./www-update
Checking out www.
destination directory: www
updating to branch default
201 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
Compressing .html
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2016, Niels Möller wrote:
> It would make sense to test both gmp and mini-gmp with
> -fsanitize=undefined.
If we are not already doing it,
On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Niels Möller wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
a user was asking if we could support calling mpz_gcd_ext with a NULL
first argument (the gcd), since they are only interested in the
coefficients s and t and would like to save the unnecessary
allocation. I
Marc Glisse writes:
> a user was asking if we could support calling mpz_gcd_ext with a NULL
> first argument (the gcd), since they are only interested in the
> coefficients s and t and would like to save the unnecessary
> allocation. I doubt it would save that much, but it
ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes:
Sounds reasonable to me. But then I'd also consider adding a return
value, returning one if the inputs were coprime (gcd == 1), otherwise
zero. Would be useful for mpz_invert.
That, unlike the user proposal, is a change which breaks source
10 matches
Mail list logo