Could we agree to disagree and come together on improvements andclean-up?
nightstrike at gmail.com
Sun Jun 1 18:05:16 CEST 2008
On 6/1/08, Joerg Arndt <arndt at jjj.de> wrote:
> Avoiding stupid things like casting pointers to integers
> (or better, avoiding pointer casts to anything but other pointers
> as defined by the standard) is a must.
This I agree with 100%. But would patches to remove that stupid
behavior be accepted?
> Roughly, the code should work on what I call a sane arch/model:
> - long is machine word,
If this is what you want, then you are specifically saying "I don't
want GMP on Windows -- end of story"
> - byte order is little- or big- endian (not 1342 or such),
> - two's complement,
> - no exception on integer overflow,
> - bits per int/long is a power of two
> - [add your sanity requirements].
> Not-so-sane archs/models _will_ require much extra work but
> I do not see any point in anticipating some vendor will do
> the silly thing to ship such an environment.
> Should there be the need to have a compiles-everywhere version
> of GMP for gcc I'd expect the gcc people to help out.
GCC people can't do anything if GMP won't accept the patches.
Further, specifically writing code that will purposefully not work on
a mainstream platform like Windows is the type of attitude that
warrants a fork.
More information about the gmp-discuss