FAT GMP 5 binaries

Torbjorn Granlund tege@swox.com
14 May 2003 19:04:38 +0200

Karl Hasselstrom <kha@treskal.com> writes:

  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.
I agree we should probably not duplicate all functions.  All mpn
functions might make sense, since these only total between 50k
and 75k, depending on machine.  (That will increase by perhaps 50%
for GMP 5, since the mpn layer will be extended.)

  So I'll chicken out and recommend that including/excluding a function
  from __gmp_cpuvec be made really easy, so it'll be easy to change.

We will want to fix indexes, allowing user code
to refer to __gmp_cpuvec.

  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
Makes sense.