FAT GMP 5 binaries
Wed, 14 May 2003 17:57:27 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
On 2003-05-14 16:49:47 +0200, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
> Karl Hasselstrom <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 2003-05-14 14:53:44 +0200, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
> > We need to decide what routines to put in __gmp_cpuvec. All GMP
> > rouines is one choice. All mpn routines or a subset of mpn
> > rouines are other choices.
> The routines that have been hand-coded in assembly are obvious
> candidates for this. For routines written in C, would the speedup
> be worth the effort?
> Important routines written in C could call mpn_addmul_1_CPU,
> directly, instead of going via __gmp_cpuvec.
GMP is pretty big as it is, so duplicating _all_ functions doen't
strike me as a particularly good idea. On the other hand, just
selecting a predefined subset, such as all mpn functions, is sure to
miss a few functions that would benefit, and include some functions
that don't really need it.
So I'll chicken out and recommend that including/excluding a function
=66rom __gmp_cpuvec be made really easy, so it'll be easy to change.
Maybe it would be a good idea to have the possiblity for _every_
function to be duplicated, controlled by a single #define per
function. (Some of that functionality will be needed anyway, since we
presumably still want to be able to compile a library optimized for a
single computer, preprocessing the whole __gmp_cpuvec machinery into
Karl Hasselstr=F6m, email@example.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----