On 2018-04-25 11:30:28 +0200, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
> paul zimmermann writes:
>
> Now MPF is faster than MPFR for all 100d operations, for 1000d and 1d
> div. You have done a great work in GMP 6!
>
> The differences there are marginal.
Moreover, the new timings have been done on an A
Dear Torbjörn,
> I am surprised that there are non-marginal differences for larger
> operations. Don't we all use mpn? Bookkeeping should be the only
> difference.
since 2004 we did implement in MPFR "short" product/square/division,
which compute an approximation of the upper n limbs of
paul zimmermann writes:
Now MPF is faster than MPFR for all 100d operations, for 1000d and 1d
div. You have done a great work in GMP 6!
The differences there are marginal.
I am surprised that there are non-marginal differences for larger
operations. Don't we all use mpn? Bookkeeping s
Dear GMP developers,
I have updated my comparison of multiple-precision floating-point software.
The old page was comparing MPF from GMP 5.0.2 with (among others) MPFR 3.1.2:
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.2/timings.html
Here, MPF was only faster than MPFR for 100d mul and sqr, and 1000d
