2009/6/11 Jeff Gilchrist
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM, gerrob wrote:
>
> > I've uploaded a new code (wagstaff2.c) in google groups to test
> > Wagstaff numbers by Anton Vrba's conjecture. It's faster than
> > wagstaff.c from Jeff Gilchrist because I'm using bitshift+bitmask
> > instead of
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM, gerrob wrote:
> I've uploaded a new code (wagstaff2.c) in google groups to test
> Wagstaff numbers by Anton Vrba's conjecture. It's faster than
> wagstaff.c from Jeff Gilchrist because I'm using bitshift+bitmask
> instead of the expensive divisions. For example f
Hi!
I've uploaded a new code (wagstaff2.c) in google groups to test
Wagstaff numbers by Anton Vrba's conjecture. It's faster than
wagstaff.c from Jeff Gilchrist because I'm using bitshift+bitmask
instead of the expensive divisions. For example for q=83339 it took me
127 sec. while the old code t
Ouch. Then I definitely am puzzled. MPIR 1.2 is oodles faster in
almost every way. It's inconceivable unless something has slipped
under the radar that the benchmark should be slower.
We may have to wait until Jason pops up again (he's switching his
machine over to Windows) and ask him what he th
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Oh wait, is this on Windows? If so, then drat!
>
> However Jason Moxham is soon going to be helping out with optimisation
> on Windows which should pick the speed up. When the code gets
> converted to the Windows calling conventions, sometimes
Oh wait, is this on Windows? If so, then drat!
However Jason Moxham is soon going to be helping out with optimisation
on Windows which should pick the speed up. When the code gets
converted to the Windows calling conventions, sometimes it upsets the
pipelining which has been done for the linux as
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> These timings look suspiciously close, but I don't think they should
> be. Perhaps we are wrong and the time complexity of this benchmark
> doesn't depend much on MPIR at all, but other things? Or is it
> possible we've picked up a system wide
As far as I know there can't be anything in MPIR 1.2 that is slower
than MPIR 1.1, but plenty that is substantially faster.
These timings look suspiciously close, but I don't think they should
be. Perhaps we are wrong and the time complexity of this benchmark
doesn't depend much on MPIR at all, b
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> The MPIR team is proud to release MPIR 1.2, which is available on our
> website:
>
> http://www.mpir.org/
> The new features of MPIR 1.2 include:
>
> * Further improvements to assembly support for K8/K10/Core2/Pentium 4
> including improvements t
I just want to solve the alloca issue on my window.
I can read up the NPIR documentation for the interface issue.
Thanks.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
To post to this group, se
10 matches
Mail list logo
