Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Test error on MPIR SVN

2010-01-05 Thread Bill Hart
2010/1/5 Cactus : > > > On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, Bill Hart wrote: >> I assume this is on 64 bit Windows? I'll open a ticket. >> >> #273 > > I have solved it - the count leading/trailing zeroes macros on Windows > were unsafe to use with long long result types (its the 32/64 bit int > issue). > > I real

[mpir-devel] Re: Test error on MPIR SVN

2010-01-05 Thread Cactus
On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, Bill Hart wrote: > I assume this is on 64 bit Windows? I'll open a ticket. > > #273 I have solved it - the count leading/trailing zeroes macros on Windows were unsafe to use with long long result types (its the 32/64 bit int issue). I really should use inlines instead - now

Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Test error on MPIR SVN

2010-01-05 Thread Bill Hart
I assume this is on 64 bit Windows? I'll open a ticket. #273 Bill. 2010/1/5 Cactus : > > On Jan 5, 11:11 am, Bill Hart wrote: >> It is worth checking that this specific prime still passes the test >> with reentrant switched on and that the error is not just going away >> because of different ra

[mpir-devel] Re: Test error on MPIR SVN

2010-01-05 Thread Cactus
On Jan 5, 11:11 am, Bill Hart wrote: > It is worth checking that this specific prime still passes the test > with reentrant switched on and that the error is not just going away > because of different random seeds or something. Perhaps try inserting > this number explicitly into the test code to

Re: [mpir-devel] Re: Test error on MPIR SVN

2010-01-05 Thread Bill Hart
It is worth checking that this specific prime still passes the test with reentrant switched on and that the error is not just going away because of different random seeds or something. Perhaps try inserting this number explicitly into the test code to check it is not declared composite. It is in fa

[mpir-devel] Re: Test error on MPIR SVN

2010-01-05 Thread Cactus
On Jan 5, 10:16 am, Cactus wrote: > I am seeing an error reported on the mpz_likely_prime test: > > mpz_likely_prime_p > 18158515892286259199 is declared composite > > I know we had issues in the past but I thought that they had been > sorted. > > Is this not so? I have found that this bug is t