On Tuesday 13 January 2009 02:23:44 mabshoff wrote: > On Jan 12, 2:36 pm, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > What Jason is saying (I think) is that currently xgcd (not gcd) > > doesn't use Moller's patches as such. It will in future, but not at > > the moment. So whatever guarantees you had before, you still have now. > > But that will soon change. > > Ok, thanks for clearing this up. To me those finer details are know > since I don't root around in the internals of gmp/mpir. > > > The other issue here is that there are multiple algorithms here and it > > is quite likely that very small examples will use the basic xgcd which > > may well guarantee minimality. Only if you have say hundreds of > > thousands of bits will the algorithm used not return minimally > > guaranteed results. I'm sure when the time comes we can give some > > explicit million digit integers for which minimality is not > > guaranteed. >
The non-minimal examples could be dependant on tuning parameters that select between different algorithms, making this sort testing impratical. > Thanks, we might want to add that to the docstring and remove the > explicit example. > > > Bill. > > Cheers, > > Michael > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
