On Sunday 15 February 2009 21:02:11 Bill Hart wrote:
> On the right hand side of the first page of Granlund/Montgomery some
> references are given to doing division by multiplying by divisors of
> 2^k-1 (for small k). I guess this is the closest thing.
>
> Rereading our correspondence on this issu
On the right hand side of the first page of Granlund/Montgomery some
references are given to doing division by multiplying by divisors of
2^k-1 (for small k). I guess this is the closest thing.
Rereading our correspondence on this issue has been useful. You
pointed out Theorem 4.2 of this paper a
I'm pretty sure the division by B-1 algorithm itself is not new, I
think Quercia's numerix library had it some time ago, from memory he
used something basically equivalent to calling mpn_add_n with
overlapping source and destination buffers (very sneaky). Also I
believe Zimmerman + Bodrato + Zanon
OK, I checked and the discussion about this paper was related to
something else. Sorry for the confusion. So it was indeed you that
came up with the divide by B-1 idea.
Bill.
2009/2/15 Bill Hart :
> I'm talking about that paper.
>
> I don't recall when we discussed this paper, but I recall you a
I'm talking about that paper.
I don't recall when we discussed this paper, but I recall you asking
me "have you read this paper" at some point, and my memory of it was
that you considered something we were discussing as essentially being
present in there. Sorry if I have conflated two different i
On Feb 15, 2:34 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> At some point we discussed where the original, original idea came
> from. At some point you read Granlund-Montgomery (after we had our
> discussion, I think) and at some point you may have decided that the
> idea was essentially already present in that work
At some point we discussed where the original, original idea came
from. At some point you read Granlund-Montgomery (after we had our
discussion, I think) and at some point you may have decided that the
idea was essentially already present in that work.
Perhaps we should credit Granlund, Montgomer
Oh right, I had half-forgotten about that. I certainly remember
discussing division by B-1 with you, but you're right, I just checked
my email archives and we definitely discussed division by 3 as well in
august 2007. Apparently I could get 3 c/l on K8 back then.
david
On Feb 15, 2:10 pm, Bill H
On Feb 15, 7:10 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> The history of it is that I sent a copy of the correspondence you and
> I had on this issue about 18 months ago to Brian and Jason. You asked
> me if there was a fast way of doing this and I started blathering
> about an algorithm. You turned it into one.
On Sunday 15 February 2009 19:10:17 Bill Hart wrote:
> The history of it is that I sent a copy of the correspondence you and
> I had on this issue about 18 months ago to Brian and Jason. You asked
> me if there was a fast way of doing this and I started blathering
> about an algorithm. You turned
On Feb 15, 6:59 pm, David Harvey wrote:
> Is the algorithm based on the idea mentioned in Torbjorn's post from
> last year?
>
> http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-devel/2008-August/000816.html
>
> david
>
> On Feb 15, 10:25 am, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 15 February 2009
The history of it is that I sent a copy of the correspondence you and
I had on this issue about 18 months ago to Brian and Jason. You asked
me if there was a fast way of doing this and I started blathering
about an algorithm. You turned it into one.
With your permission I can post our email excha
Is the algorithm based on the idea mentioned in Torbjorn's post from
last year?
http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-devel/2008-August/000816.html
david
On Feb 15, 10:25 am, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
> On Sunday 15 February 2009 14:13:23 David Harvey wrote:
>
> > Hi, I'm curious to try th
On Feb 15, 3:25 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
> On Sunday 15 February 2009 14:13:23 David Harvey wrote:
>
> > Hi, I'm curious to try this new divide-by-3 code, but I can't find it
> > in the repo. Where do I look? How many c/l is it?
>
> > david
>
> about 2.3c/l , I expect it could be twe
On Sunday 15 February 2009 14:13:23 David Harvey wrote:
> Hi, I'm curious to try this new divide-by-3 code, but I can't find it
> in the repo. Where do I look? How many c/l is it?
>
> david
about 2.3c/l , I expect it could be tweeked some more
I never put it in the repo because I never got around
On Feb 15, 6:13 am, David Harvey wrote:
Hi David,
> Hi, I'm curious to try this new divide-by-3 code, but I can't find it
> in the repo. Where do I look? How many c/l is it?
>
> david
>
> p.s. The wiki still says
>
> svn co svn://sage.math.washington.edu/mpir/
>
> but this is wrong, apparently
Hi, I'm curious to try this new divide-by-3 code, but I can't find it
in the repo. Where do I look? How many c/l is it?
david
p.s. The wiki still says
svn co svn://sage.math.washington.edu/mpir/
but this is wrong, apparently
svn co http://modular.math.jmu.edu/svn/mpir/
is current?
On Feb 15
The simple solution is to call it mpir_n_divexact_by_3. Jason Martin
and I tossed around the idea of having an mpn like interface in MPIR
(called mpir_n) with all the functions we want, and then just define
macros to give the GMP interface. That seems logical to me.
What do you guys think?
Bill.
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 10:53:53 Cactus wrote:
> In configuring the Windows build of the experimental branch in SVN, I
> have to decide what to do about the new __gmpn_divide_by_3 and
> __gmpn_divide_by_3c assembler code (I offer both on Windows).
>
> In GMP the function __gmpn_divide_by_3c is
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 10:53:53 Cactus wrote:
> In configuring the Windows build of the experimental branch in SVN, I
> have to decide what to do about the new __gmpn_divide_by_3 and
> __gmpn_divide_by_3c assembler code (I offer both on Windows).
>
> In GMP the function __gmpn_divide_by_3c is
20 matches
Mail list logo
