Thanks almut, cdarke for the /E tip. It revealed that there's a function called 'gpsi' in the pari source, and I guess that was the root of the problem the compiler was having with the 'gpsi' identifier. I couldn't find out (didn't look too hard) what was changing the name of the identifier from 'lpsi' to 'gpsi' - in the end I just changed the 2 occurrences of 'lpsi' in WinUser.h to 'lxpsi' and that got me passed that hurdle.
Next problem was:
kernel1.c(223) : error C4235: nonstandard extension used : '__asm' key
+word not supported on this architecture
Is that telling me that inlining of assembly code is not supported on this architecture ? Or does it just mean that one needs to use a different keyword and/or technique to inline assembly code ?
Finally, I tried a straight C build (no asm). That compiled ok, but resulted in a number of segfaults and test failures during the running of the test suite.
I think I'll just settle for the 32-bit build - ftm, anyway.
Cheers,
Rob
Update:"ftm" eq "for the moment". (I think there are some who might have thought it meant something else :-) | [reply]
[d/l] |
Is that telling me that inlining of assembly code is not supported on this architecture ?
Yes, probably. __asm{} was previously, only supported on x86. It would appear to indicate that they haven't yet, or maybe, are not intending to, ungrade the inline assembler to support iapx-64?
This post on the MS forums might suggest a way around this, via the use of another non-standard extension __emit{}. But then you'd have to translate the opcode to hex yourself, which seems more than a little retro. Shades of Spectrum Duck Shoot :)
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Thanks BrowserUK.
I must confess that I don't understand the reference to "Spectrum Duck Shoot" at all ... but it certainly sounds like something that I could readily support.
For me, the main value of the link you provided was that it advised putting the asm code in a separate file. (I freak right out whenever I see something that begins with "0x..." :-)
Cheers,
Rob
| [reply] |