Problem with __gmp_expr

Torbjorn Granlund tg at
Sat Jan 18 14:08:53 UTC 2014

Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at> writes:

  I still believe it is too late for 5.2, but it is definitely worth
  considering for 5.3, if it makes more code valid (although it is a
  kind of code I'd prefer people not to write) and lets the compiler
  generate better asm. It should also make it easier to implement other
  optimizations like replacing -(-x) with x.
I have epsilon understanding of C++, so I cannot contribute any
judgements in this area.

If those who have educated hypotheses about the semantics of the
wonderful C++ language are reasonably convinced that this change is
correct, we might want to try the change and rely on this:

Thanks to the testseq mechanism (~tege/prec/testseq.c) and system
emulation we now have really broad testing.  (The reporting mechanism
might need some work.)

If it breaks, we can roll back the change.

Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622

More information about the gmp-bugs mailing list