It's a bit hard to see the graph, but you see a similar phenomenon with the cutoffs on Bodrato's graph:
http://bodrato.it/software/tc3-7-percent.png Toom 7 looks to be ahead of Toom 4 from a very early point. We'll have to finish optimising both Toom 4 and Toom 7, but it is possible we'll scrap the former altogether, as it is a massive amount of code for not much benefit. As I now have a Toom optimiser that I wrote, I might just push on to Toom 8 or higher and see what happens. Bill. 2009/4/15 David Harvey <dmhar...@cims.nyu.edu>: > > > On Apr 15, 4:42 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You might find my notes from Bill's class right now interesting: >> >> http://wiki.wstein.org/09/583e >> >> Click on the "schedule" link. > > Hmmm, the notes are a bit hard to decipher, but I see things like > > "For Toom 7, cutoff is abut 190 limbs, and it always beats Toom 4/5" > > I find this a bit hard to believe. It suggests that the implementation > of toom 4 is inefficient. In GMP 4.3 on K8 the toom3 -> toom4 > threshold is about 400 limbs. You are seriously claiming toom 7 can > beat that at 190 limbs? What evaluation points are being used? > > david > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
