Thanks Brian. I put a note on the website about this to warn people
that the benchmark is not suitable for comparisons of that kind, with
specific mention of these two parts (fermat and mersenne). I obviously
didn't fully realise that. My bad.
Bill.
2010/1/11 Cactus :
>
>
> On Jan 11, 3:23 am, Bi
On 11 Gen, 12:35, Bill Hart wrote:
> Nah, the discussion is over.
Ok, you chose the easiest way: to escape.
> Your suggestion of me donating code to the FSF shows you have totally
> missed the point.
It was too much, I realised while trying to write the 10 lines... too
easy for such a big price
Nah, the discussion is over.
Your suggestion of me donating code to the FSF shows you have totally
missed the point.
Why should I donate a few thousand lines of my own code to them
because you donate 10 lines to us?
Go away. You are just being rude. I can write the lines myself.
I personally th
> I am afraid that you are misusing my benchmark, which I provede as a
> way of monitoring aspects of MPIR development.
[...]
> It is NOT intended for use in comparing MPIR and GMP and, as you have
> quickly discovered, it is completely inappropriate for this.
I'm afraid you should explain this to
On Jan 11, 7:48 am, Gianrico Fini wrote:
> I missed this yesterday... (I was sleepy)
>
> On 11 Gen, 03:50, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> > > We finally agree! That function is a joke!
>
> > I'm talking about the real mpn_mulmod_2expp1 function in mpn/generic,
> > not the stupid alternative in the bench
On Jan 11, 3:23 am, Bill Hart wrote:
> No problems. Sleep well.
>
> And can I suggest that next time when you find a problem, discuss it
> with us, rather than just calling us cheaters and ridiculing us.
>
> There's something like 300,000 lines of code in MPIR (much of it from
> the original GMP
