| Re: [AD] proposing a new official .lib name for VC static CRT version |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 23:21 +1100, Peter Wang wrote:
> On 2006-01-11, Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 January 2006 23:30, Peter Wang wrote:
> > > Not to pull this too far off track but, at least on Unix, the C-only
> > > builds ought be given different names too.
> >
> > Is the C-only version incompatible with the asm version?
>
> Yes. The bank switching routines use different calling conversions, but
> also some internal symbols exist in one version but not the other.
> For example, when I try to run a binary compiled with an asm-Allegro
> against a C-Allegro, I get this message:
>
> ./examples/ex12bit: symbol lookup error: ./examples/ex12bit: undefined symbol: _mask_mmx_16
>
Maybe it's time to remove the asm version in both branches? I can see
the following advantages:
- solves the above incompatibility
- better performance
- no more liballeg_unsharable.a
- simplified windows build process
Vs. disadvantages:
- extra work
- throwing away working ASM code somehow feels bad, even if it's
outdated..
- reduced performance on things like intel 386 and 486 (are they still
in use though, and does Allegro still work on them?)
- it may be harder introducing new asm in the future (e.g. once no more
mingw is required to create a windows build, it has to stay that way)
For future asm code, we should try to make it compatible to the C
functions if that is possible.. I assume, you can somehow specify the
calling convention for ASM functions as well, and also write ASM PIC
code? But I'm not very sure about details of both.. i.e. why are they
problems at all :/
--
Elias Pschernig