On Thursday 05 March 2009 16:29:30 Bill Hart wrote: > I'd prefer to change the grep to include a search for GLOBAL_FUNC mpn_name. >
No problem , how do we multi-function files ? > Bill. > > 2009/3/5 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > > On Thursday 05 March 2009 16:19:32 Bill Hart wrote: > >> Even if it is by filename, it might not recognise them now that they > >> are .as files. > > > > looks like it just grep's *.asm or *.as for the keyword > > PROLOGUE(mpn_name) so perhaps we could put PROLOGUE(mpn_name) in the *.as > > as a empty macro? - Show quoted text - > > > >> 2009/3/5 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > >> > Don't the M4 macros PROLOGUE(mpn_blah) in the .asm files trigger this? > >> > Now that they are .as files with GLOBAL_FUNC mpn_blah instead of > >> > PROLOGUE(mpn_blah) it just thinks the functions don't exist. Or does > >> > it do by filename. > >> > > >> > Bill. > >> > > >> > 2009/3/5 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> >> On Thursday 05 March 2009 16:10:04 Bill Hart wrote: > >> >>> Then this surely affects the Windows bench as well as the linux one. > >> >>> I see it is used in Toom multiplication. > >> >>> > >> >>> Happy days. There's your 2% missing for Windows! > >> >> > >> >> I'm not so sure , the problem is in configure.in , before configure > >> >> generates config.h with our HAVE_NATIVE_mpn_addlsh1_n etc , and now > >> >> its empty > >> > > >> > - Show quoted text - > >> > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > >> >> > >> >>> Bill. > >> >>> > >> >>> 2009/3/5 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> >>> > On Thursday 05 March 2009 16:05:46 Bill Hart wrote: > >> >>> >> Would the loss of these also affect the mpirbench? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > yes > >> >>> > - Show quoted text - > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> Bill. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> 2009/3/5 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> >>> >> > The conversion from gas to yasm have lost the defines > >> >>> >> > HAVE_NATIVE_* > >> >>> >> > so that addlsh1_n etc dont appear in speed or try > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > On Thursday 05 March 2009 13:38:29 Bill Hart wrote: > >> >>> >> > - Show quoted text - > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >> 2009/3/5 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> >>> >> >> > On Wednesday 04 March 2009 23:56:48 Bill Hart wrote: > >> >>> >> >> >> I've had a think, especially considering the 10's of > >> >>> >> >> >> thousands of people who will be using MPIR in Sage, not to > >> >>> >> >> >> mention the sponsor, and I think we need to write try tests > >> >>> >> >> >> for the mpn functions we use. > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> We could divide the work in half by one person writing the > >> >>> >> >> >> reference tests and the other writing the lt-try tests. I > >> >>> >> >> >> volunteer to write the reference tests. I may be able to > >> >>> >> >> >> start this tomorrow after I finish with converting the core > >> >>> >> >> >> 2 code to yasm. > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > I can do half or all if you want ,although if may be better > >> >>> >> >> > if I didn't write either , so if I have made a mistake , you > >> >>> >> >> > are unlikely to repeat the same mistake . > >> >>> >> >> > Note: > >> >>> >> >> > lshift1,rshift1 are just macros on non-amd systems > >> >>> >> >> > lshift1,rshift1 overlap requirements are same or separate > >> >>> >> >> > ONLY redc_basecase,sumdiff has a mpn/generic written by > >> >>> >> >> > someone else addsub returns int not limb > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> > looking at try it allready has tests for sumdiff ,addlsh1 > >> >>> >> >> > ,sublsh1 > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> None of those appear in the list when you run try without > >> >>> >> >> parameters. We should add those to the list. > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > so we only need new tests for > >> >>> >> >> > redc_basecase,lshift1,rshift1,addadd,addsub > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> Cool. Do you want to add some tests assuming there is a > >> >>> >> >> reference implementation available to test against, and I'll > >> >>> >> >> write the reference implementation. That's good enough for me. > >> >>> >> >> If a different person writes the reference implementation to > >> >>> >> >> the original then it's a pretty good test. > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> Bill. > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > - Show quoted text - > >> >>> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> Bill. > >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> 2009/3/4 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> >>> >> >> >> > On Wednesday 04 March 2009 23:24:59 Bill Hart wrote: > >> >>> >> >> >> >> Is there a test for lshift1, rshift1, addlsh1, addrsh1, > >> >>> >> >> >> >> addadd, addsub, sumdiff, divebyff or redc_basecase? > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> Do we need tests for these? > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> I know we use addadd and addsub. Do we use any of the > >> >>> >> >> >> >> others yet? > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> > we use lshift1 rshift1 addlsh1 sublsh1 sumdiff > >> >>> >> >> >> > redc_basecase we dont use divebyff > >> >>> >> >> >> > make check run tests for all these , but nothing in ./try > >> >>> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> Bill. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> 2009/3/4 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > 2009/3/4 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 04 March 2009 22:40:18 Bill Hart wrote: > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> I'd like to propose a code freeze on all K8/K10 > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> assembly code, which I have now converted to yasm > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> format, unless serious bugs are uncovered. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> If we freeze the code then we can begin testing. I > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> propose we wear out each and every file with > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> /tests/devel/try including many small operands and > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> as many different types of data as try can throw at > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> it. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> There no point both of us running the same test on > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> cuda1 say , so who does which machine? > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > I am currently running tests on a K8. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Do you want to do cuda? > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > That will be enough. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Let me just check that: > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > wbh...@host-57-44:~/mpir-trunk/tests/devel$ ./try -s > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > 1-50 -r 10 -S 1-50 mpn_blah blah blah > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > does something sensible according to you? > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> On my machine the K8 code gets a bench of 15283 > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> which is what it got before the conversion. Also on > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> K10 I did cycle timings of all the functions we care > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> about and they did not change (to within tolerances > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> due to variations between runs of course). > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> I'm inclined to finish the core 2 code conversion > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> tomorrow, do some cleaning up of the C code (insert > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> some whitespace > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> :-)) and then release 1.0.0. It's just about as much > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> : work > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> as releasing 0.9.1. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> wasting precious bytes with whitespace :) > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Now we know what is causing that 2 Trillion dollar > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > debt!! > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> I thought I ran my C-code thru indent first , to use > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> the standard format , perhaps I missed some files. I > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> really find difficult to believe that people read > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> code formated with the standard amount of whitespace > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> , I'm forever scrolling up and down to try to see the > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> rest of the function.First thing I do when reading > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> code now is to delete most whitespace. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Maybe I won't have much to do. I did see some code the > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > other day that I would instinctively do some things to > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > however. It's just a knee-jerk reaction. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > I used to despise whitespace too. However I did change > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > my mind after certain other programmer told me my code > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > was sending them crosseyed. Now I like the sense of > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > peace that one gets from the whitespace. It's like > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > having a spacious office as opposed to clutter. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Obviously I accept it is a matter of preference and > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > irrelevant in the scheme of things. However I have > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > observed that the majority tend to go for space. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> By the way, make check still runs the yasm tests. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> It was quite a job do disable all the tests , so I > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> left it , as it doesn't effect the correctness > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > That's fine. No problem by me. > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> >> > Bill. > >> >>> >> >> >> > > >> >>> >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
