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
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
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
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
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
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
