Any Large Integer Libraries Out There for the ARM?

David T. Ashley wrote:

> Noob wrote:
> 
>> AFAIR, gcc supports restrict even in (non-pedantic) C89 mode.
> 
> Could you define "pedantic" in this usage?
> 
> I looked up the word in a dictionary and also looked at compiler
> options, and the meaning of the word really isn't making sense to me.
> 
> What is "pedantic"?

I was referring to GCC's "-pedantic" option.

cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-pedantic-252

Regards.

Christopher Head wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:59:09 +0200
> Hans-Bernhard Br&#4294967295;ker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> I'm afraid you're overlooking the aliasing issue.  Just because
>> _your_ function doesn't modify those values doesn't mean they won't
>> change mid-stride, which could actually _require_ the function to
>> keep reading the original value through the pointer.
>>
>> E.g. what do you think would happen if I did something (admittedly) 
>> crazy equivalent to
>>
>>    uint32_t  mynum[10];
>>    mul_32_96(/*in32*/mynum + i, /*in96*/ mynum + 1, /*out*/mynum);
> 
> Doesn't the C strict aliasing rule make this unspecified behaviour?
> Pointers to different types neither of which are
> (signed|unsigned|blank) char and which aren't related by one being an
> element of the other are assumed not to alias.

He didn't provide the prototype of mul_32_96, but given the
function call, one could assume

  void mul_32_96(uint32_t *in32, uint32_t *in96, uint32_t *mynum);

where aliasing could indeed happen.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:41:52 +0200
Noob <root@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> He didn't provide the prototype of mul_32_96, but given the
> function call, one could assume
> 
>   void mul_32_96(uint32_t *in32, uint32_t *in96, uint32_t *mynum);
> 
> where aliasing could indeed happen.

In that case it could. I assumed in96 was some kind of 96-bit-long
type, probably a struct. If they're all uint32_t pointers, then of
course they could alias.

Chris

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:22:06 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>
>"Pedantic" means "particularly fussy or detailed".  With gcc, using 
>"pedantic" means that the compiler will be much stricter about 
>supporting the standards, and /only/ the standards.  For example, 
>"restrict" and "inline" are keywords in later C standards, but were not 
>available in earlier ones.  gcc likes to give you more features than the 
>standards demand, so that you can use these features when compiling in 
>C89 mode.  But to allow for people who happened to have a function 
>called "restrict" and a typedef called "inline", which is legal in C89 
>but not C99, you can compile in "pedantic" mode.  (You can still access 
>newer features as "__restrict__" or "__inline__" for example.) 
>"pedantic" mode is also useful for checking strict standards 
>compatibility to aid portability of code.

Thanks, now I understand.

Using www.dictionary.com, I got this:

1. ostentatious in one's learning. 
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in
teaching.

The definition you provided is (I think) #2, and it wasn't clicking
for me by just reading the dictionary definition and the documentation
of the compiler parameter.

DTA