On Nov 6, 5:28 pm, Jason Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Now you're starting to make me nervous that there is a repository
problem!! I spent many hours merging Moller's gmp_h.in into ours. I
also replaced the GMP gcd routine with Moller's so his routines should
be getting called.
Hi
I have just added the Windows versions of Jason's code to the K8-
experimental SVN branch. I have also added an interim version of
sqr_basecase.asm that Jason has provided. This does not improve on the
performance of the earlier code (in fact it is a bit slower for medium
sized operands) but it
I have been working almost exclusively in the experimental branch in
recent weeks but I thought that I ought to bring the Windows code in
the trunk into line with the other builds.
This only involves adding the test for mpz_perfect_power_p but when I
run this test I get:
mpz_perfect_power_p
On Feb 17, 9:12 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
One has to move the stuff across. This is one downside of svn. Then
again, if a pile of patches gets made in some other system, chances
are they don't apply anyway.
Hopefully all the Windows fixes you made to both the
On Feb 17, 4:16 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:03:40 Cactus wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:01 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
You can move stuff into trunk as soon as you like. I will check out
the correct revision when I create
On Feb 19, 10:46 am, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Mariah mariah.le...@gmail.com wrote:
gmp-4.2.4 mpir-0.9.0
2241.9 2251 cicero (pentium4-pc-linux-gnu)
3371.5 3369.3 cleo (ia64-unknown-linux-gnu)
6024.5
On Feb 23, 12:17 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Monday 23 February 2009 12:06:28 Bill Hart wrote:
2009/2/23 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com:
On Feb 23, 10:03 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
I've closed all the MPIR 0.9.0 trac tickets which were resolved
On Feb 23, 3:22 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
I've finished with the core2 and K8 branches now , so I can delete them , I
assume the svn log will be transfered/kept in trunk?
Is this OK , Brian?
Jason
Yes, that is fine by me. I think we can also delete the toom3 branch
as well.
On Feb 23, 9:29 pm, Mariah mariah.le...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill,
We need to be slightly careful. Note that the license for gmpbench
states that we may not report our results as gmpbench results, as we
are not comparing official releases of GMP. For this reason we have
forked gmpbench
On Feb 23, 10:26 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:29 pm, Mariah mariah.le...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill,
We need to be slightly careful. Note that the license for gmpbench
states that we may not report our results as gmpbench results, as we
are not comparing
of
Windows I presume it is possible to do this by just renaming the files
or making copies with the alternate name. In linux we can choose to
either rename or provide symlinks.
Is there a performance hit from using symlinks anyone?
Bill.
2009/3/1 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com:
On Mar 1, 4:46
On Mar 1, 6:47 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Windows I just generate both gmp.h and mpir.h from gmp-h.in.
I guess I didn't notice that. Using your the standard convention you
have set up
On Mar 1, 9:14 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
For AMD64 GMP 4.2.4 with the MSVC stuff from my site and MPIR 0.9.x
with MSVC are essentially identical in performance since the MPIR and
GMP
On Mar 1, 9:16 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
At the moment the following should be there:
mpir.h
config.h
gmp-mparam.h
mpir.lib
mpir.pdb
Yes that is what I am seeing.
I have been
On Mar 3, 12:42 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
I have added batch files in the vc9.build directory - to_gmp.bat and
to_mpir.bat - for name conversion.
Great, thanks, it seems to work well
early!! So I will spend a little time on mpir again. I'll work up some
timings for you on a core 2.
Bill.
2009/3/3 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com:
On Mar 3, 12:42 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote
On Mar 3, 2:44 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Do you think that the gas assembly code in amd64, K10 and Core 2 is
now in a final form for mpir-1.0.0?
If so, do you object if I convert it to yasm format. The reason we do
that is because we want to eventually do
On Mar 3, 3:07 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
So I hope we are not just looking at architecture differences
between your core2 and that machine here.
There are architectural changes between
On Mar 3, 4:25 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
One interesting idea is that MSVC *.lib libraries are supposed to be
interchangeable with gcc *.a libraries. So if I can get a mpir.a
libraty
On Mar 3, 4:21 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
I have the Windows figures - its the Linux/gcc/gas figures that I
need. It was Jason's K8 figures that allowed me to identify what was
wrong
On Mar 3, 8:45 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:32 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:07 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com
wrote:
So I hope we
On Mar 3, 9:13 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
I compaare mpn_mul_basecase results in mpn_mul_basecase.pdf. This
shows similar performance on Bill's and my Core2 up to a breakpoint
that I imagine
duo mobile seem to be not in doubt.
If the issues are for very small sized integers, then I don't see a
hardware architectural reason for it.
Bill.
2009/3/3 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com:
On Mar 3, 3:32 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:07 pm, Jeff Gilchrist
rsa 2048
MPIRbench.app.rsa.2048 result: 412
MPIRbench.app.rsa result: 2326.60
MPIRbench.app result 2326.60
MPIRbench result: 8168.08
CPU T7500 Core2 2.2GHz, 4GB RAM
I'll try to get the Linux results later today.
Case
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Cactus rieman
On Mar 4, 2:24 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Here are the figures for the 2.66 GHz Xeon Core 2 (Dunnington 6 core
16 MB cache) sage.math:
wbh...@sage:~/mpir-core2/tune$ ./speed -c -s 1-40 mpn_add_n
overhead 6.00 cycles, precision 100 units of 3.75e-10 secs, CPU
freq
On Mar 4, 8:52 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Brian,
I will finish off the K8 code as is, and have already done the K10
code. But if you could email the output of applying the new version to
the Core 2 code, that would probably save me lots of time.
Bill
In the Core
. But if you could email the output of applying the new version to
the Core 2 code, that would probably save me lots of time.
Bill.
2009/3/4 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com:
On Mar 4, 8:25 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hmm, so far no alignment issues appear
On Mar 5, 1:45 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Brian,
I can't speak for the future, but for now, I would take Jason's .asm
files just before the conversion I did yesterday to be authoritative.
One can check out previous revisions from svn, and that is probably
the best
On Mar 5, 1:56 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Brian,
I noted that the new version of your script still emits ASM_START. You
could have it emit BITS 64 instead if you like, or just omit it
altogether.
Good idea - I need BITS 64 as well.
Also, when I said that the
On Mar 5, 3:01 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Someone broke the yasm build for core2. It says:
/bin/bash ../libtool --mode=compile --tag=CC ../strip_fPIC.sh ../yasm/
yasm -I .. -f elf64 -o mul_1.lo `test -f 'mul_1.as' || echo
'./'`mul_1.as
../strip_fPIC.sh ../yasm/yasm
On Mar 5, 4:01 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's not all we've lost. There's 2% gone somewhere on core 2. I
tried putting align # instead of alignb #,nop and it makes absolutely
no difference to the times whatsoever.
Dunno where the 2% went, but it is real, not timing
On Mar 5, 4:10 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Then this surely affects the Windows bench as well as the linux one. I
see it is used in Toom multiplication.
Happy days. There's your 2% missing for Windows!
Sadly not - I don't get my HAVE_NATIVE stuff in the same way.
On Mar 5, 5:25 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't believe so.
The ones I sent you would have had CRLF line endings.
Brian
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
mpir-devel
On Mar 6, 12:44 am, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to Jason's recommendation, I was finally able to get a 64bit
Linux distro working on my Core2 machine so I have now been able to
benchmark MPIR in Linux and Vista 64bit on the same machine.
I have attached the
On Mar 6, 7:55 am, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:44 am, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to Jason's recommendation, I was finally able to get a 64bit
Linux distro working on my Core2 machine so I have now been able to
benchmark MPIR in Linux
Hi All,
We agreed way back to stick with C89 + long long but variable length
arrays are creeping into the test code.
I thought that I would compile try.c and I can do this in GMP.
But MPIR's try.c has variable length arrays so its not going to
compile for me on Windows :-(
Brian
On Mar 7, 4:21 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 16:04:25 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:01 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 15:48:43 Cactus wrote:
Hi All,
We agreed way back to stick with C89 + long long but variable
On Mar 7, 4:34 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 16:25:18 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:21 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 16:04:25 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:01 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March
On Mar 7, 5:45 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 16:47:28 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:34 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 16:25:18 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:21 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March
On Mar 7, 6:19 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 17:48:27 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:45 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 16:47:28 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:34 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March
On Mar 6, 8:48 am, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 6, 7:55 am, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:44 am, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to Jason's recommendation, I was finally able to get a 64bit
Linux distro working on my
On Mar 7, 6:41 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 18:25:15 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:19 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 17:48:27 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:45 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March
On Mar 8, 12:02 am, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 23:35:50 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:41 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 18:25:15 Cactus wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:19 pm, ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 07 March
On Mar 8, 12:50 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Results of try test on core2 (sage.math):
All passed!!
So the current revision should be considered alpha1? How about the
Windows build Brian? Are you happy with where it stands?
I don't think I can do more to it in the
On Mar 8, 5:21 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks Brian,
In that case, let's freeze code in trunk except for documentation and
serious bug fixes which arise as part of testing.
Should I bump my MPIR version number to 1.0.0 in the trunk now?
Brian
On Mar 8, 5:24 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:21 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks Brian,
In that case, let's freeze code in trunk except for documentation and
serious bug fixes which arise as part of testing.
Should I bump my MPIR
through that, I have been using 1
repetition for sizes up to 100, then random large sizes for mpn_mul
only into the Toom region.
Bill.
2009/3/8 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com:
On Mar 8, 5:24 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:21 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh
Hi All,
I have a speed analysis program running in Python on WIndows that it
would be useful to run on Linux. But it fails on Linux. I hence
wonder if anyone here who has experience of Python on Linux might be
able to translate the part of my Windows Python program that fails
into something
On Mar 10, 1:37 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Both of those proposed changes actually sound really useful to me. +1 from me.
Bill.
2009/3/10 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com:
Hi All,
I have been using speed to track down Windows MPIR performance issues
and I
On Mar 12, 4:44 am, Case Vanhorsen cas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Case Vanhorsen cas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I have a speed analysis program running in Python on WIndows
On Mar 12, 1:08 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
It requires the new version of speed with my recent 'start(step)end'
modification.
At the moment run-speed.py expects Python 2.6 or later
On Mar 12, 2:16 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
After compiling MPIR and speed you should be able to run run-
speed.py. It runs either in build.vc9 or where Linux puts speed.
I'm in the process
On Mar 12, 2:23 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
This can happen when tune cannot get a stable result.
Does it fail consistently at the same point?
Yes, I just ran it about 6 times and it always
On Mar 12, 2:27 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:23 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
This can happen when tune cannot get a stable result.
Does it fail consistently
jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
This can happen when tune cannot get a stable result.
Does it fail consistently at the same point?
Yes, I just ran it about 6 times and it always fails after it displays
the #define
On Mar 12, 4:39 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
Tune fails on Windows and it looks like it is an optimisation bug.
Jeff can you turn off 'whole program optimisation' for the three
builds
On Mar 12, 5:11 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
If the parameters change a lot I have found it necessary to repeat the
process to get the best parameters.
The numbers keep changing so it is hard
On Mar 13, 12:12 am, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:31 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:11 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
If the parameters
The Core2 assembler code for mpn_add_n (and mpn_sub_n?) uses the lahf
and sahf op codes to save and restore the carry flag from rax but my
Intel documents say that this is only valid in 64 bit mode for some
but not all Intel 64-bit processors. To quote:
It is valid in 64-bit mode only if
On Mar 14, 4:45 pm, Jason Moxham ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
I pretty sure all core2 cpus have lahf,sahf , it's just some Pentium D dont
have it . You can test the lahf_lm feature bit in cpuid to see if it's got it
On Saturday 14 March 2009 16:40:10 Cactus wrote:
The Core2 assembler
On Mar 14, 5:53 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
This problem is quite difficult to deal with. I thought about it on
the way home, and I don't want to have config.guess return:
nocona-lahf-unknown-gnu-linux
How does the 32 bit code decide if MMX is available etc? I suppose
On Mar 15, 1:16 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
So I was unable to run the latest speed tests on the Linux 64bit live
CD that works on my Q9550 since it only contains Python 2.5 but I did
get a chance to run some benchmarks one of my GMP programs so we have
some
On Mar 15, 4:02 pm, Jason Moxham ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 14 March 2009 15:04:09 Bill Hart wrote:
On 14/03/2009, Jason Moxham ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 14 March 2009 13:46:51 Bill Hart wrote:
I've been working on converting Paul Zimmermann's
get it to touch the *.c *.h in demos/calc
automagically
Done
you can also try
make distcheck
2009/3/15 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com:
On Mar 15, 4:02 pm, Jason Moxham ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
On Saturday 14 March 2009 15:04:09 Bill Hart wrote:
On 14/03/2009, Jason
On Mar 15, 6:53 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 15, 6:48 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brian,
I just redid make dist to include this update. Tarball now contains
the new/changed files.
Thanks Bill,
I was assuming that I should test the Windows
On Mar 15, 7:06 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
No problems from here. These are the links I am using:
hhttp://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/mpir-1.0.tar.gz
This one worked (less the extra h)
Brian
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
On Mar 16, 3:49 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
I removed our modified mpir-0.9 branch, checked the original out an
recomitted the clean version. As we never released 0.9.1, this seemed
like the sensible thing to do. Obviously there is a new mpir-1.0
branch. As we will
On Mar 19, 2:37 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
By the way, are you sure it is possible to have lahf and non-lahf
netburst 64 bit chips?
I thought only very early p4's had this problem, i.e. all 32 bits.
Hi Bill
This is definitely a problem on some 64-bit processors.
On Mar 19, 8:52 pm, Jason Moxham ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com wrote:
in the mpn_divexact_by3.asm
we ended with
sbb %rdx,%rcx
end:
C lea below is imul $-3,%rcx,%rax
lea (%rcx,%rcx,2),%rax
neg %rax
ret
and in mpn_divexact_by3.as
we have
sbb rcx, rdx
end:
I have been discussing our recent findings about alignment padding
with Peter Johnson (YASM's primary author) and he has now been through
this in some detail and has updated YASM accordingly - see here:
http://www.tortall.net/projects/yasm/changeset/2181
In view of the padding problems we
On Mar 27, 1:27 pm, Dave dhow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm a postgrad student at Warwick, and I'm hoping to start
contributing to MPIR in the next weeks and months.
My plan is to implement some basic arithmetic in MIPS, and then tidy
up the mpir_n functions, but to start I'm going to
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:27 pm, Dave dhow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm a postgrad student at Warwick, and I'm hoping to start
contributing to MPIR in the next weeks and months.
My plan is to implement some basic arithmetic
On Mar 27, 5:38 pm, Jason Martin jason.worth.mar...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian:
According to
http://hg.serpentine.com/mercurial/book
it looks like the Mercurial book is being updated right now (last
update was 28 minutes ago), so that probably is why you hit an error
when trying to
Hi Everyone
I have added a Windows build capability to mpirbench in SVN.
I have also modified the C files to reduce some duplication so please
let me know if I have messed anything up for Linux users.
The Windows version of mpirbench can be run from a Python script or
from WIndows Powershell.
On Apr 9, 9:14 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
I fixed a bug in fat.c in the x86 directory (replace athlon with k8)
and on cygwin32 MPIR builds and passes make check. The fat binary also
builds and passes make check.
I'm going to downgrade the bug we have listed in trac
On Apr 9, 9:27 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Oh, have I got this mixed up? I assumed it was ming64 that we had the
--enable-fat issue. It was on Windows 2000 if I recall. Could it have
been mingw32 on Windows 2000?
I am afraid I didn't get involved in this issue so I
On Apr 9, 9:37 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you give me a link to the site. I think I am getting it from the
wrong place.
Sorry for the daly Bill but I have been travelling since 9:30 this
morning and have only just got off the road.
I think I just followed the
On Apr 17, 3:05 am, Dan Shumow shu...@gmail.com wrote:
I was just playing around and I was curious if it is possible to turn
off including assembly optimizations with a pound define. I see the
NO_ASM flag, but that appears to only work when __GNUC__ is defined.
If I undef all of the
On Apr 17, 9:01 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for more bad news. I have just had a chance to try 1.1.0 on
Windows and 32bit is compiling fine, but 64bit Core2 and AMD builds
fail.
I'm getting an error that it cannot open subadd_n.asm and sure enough
if I look
On Apr 22, 8:31 am, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 6:38 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I just downloaded the tarball and the file is there for me in
mpn/x86_64w/addmul_2.asm
There must be something up with the paths in the project
On Apr 22, 9:15 am, Willem Jan Palenstijn w...@usecode.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 08:54:42AM +0100, Jason Moxham wrote:
Hi
It's hard to believe that svn(or the others) dont have a solution for this.
How about something like this
Brian wants branch-xyz , he logs into svn
On Apr 22, 3:57 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Thanks Jeff. I've added a testing matrix on the website:http://www.mpir.org/
Can you look down the list and make sure I have listed your
On Apr 22, 5:23 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brian,
Just to confirm, you test the Windows build only, on these machines.
Yes, that's correct.
Brian
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Apr 22, 5:40 pm, gerrob robert.gerb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I've written a much faster code than the currently used in gmp/mpir.
Million of bits numbers can be tested in about 1 sec, but slower by a
factor of 2 up to about 1000 bits numbers on my pc. Tested a lot, it
should be good.
On Apr 22, 6:05 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian, another thing I'm confused about for MSVC testing. I load
mpir-tests.sln and it has 143 projects. If I do a Build Solution
(with Release and x64 selected like I used for building the MPIR
library) I get an error
On Apr 22, 6:18 pm, Robert Gerbicz robert.gerb...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/22 Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com
On Apr 22, 5:40 pm, gerrob robert.gerb...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I've written a much faster code than the currently used in gmp/mpir.
Million of bits numbers can
On Apr 22, 6:48 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 6:29 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
To overcoem this problem I hence had to drop all the test project
dependencies
Hi All,
Just to let those interested know, I have made two minor changes to
the Windows MPIR build in the SVN trunk.
These don't change the Windows MPIR build itself but are intended to
make it a bit easier to build some applications on top of MPIR on
Windows.
First, I have adjusted the build
On May 21, 4:36 am, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
Peter Wong writes:
Hello to all, my system is AMD Athlon core 2 .
My OS is MS Window XP with MS VS 2008 express.
./configure --enable-cxx --disable-static --enable-shared
make
make check return 9 test failed
t-bswap.exe
On May 23, 11:06 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May, 13:31, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
I just tried building MPIR with the latest MSYS on my K8 and no
problems. So something strange is going on I think.
Admittedly I have Vista and not XP.
Also, I
On May 26, 8:10 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May, 18:30, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On May 23, 11:06 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May, 13:31, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
I just tried building MPIR
Hi All,
We are in the final stages of preparing for the MPIR 1.2 release and
we need a volunteer to help in producing FFT tuning values for the
Core2 processor.
I was doing this but I was using a mobile Core2 processor with power
saving features that seemed to interfere with the tuning process.
On Jun 4, 11:15 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
How about command to rebuild with cpp interface in static library
format ?
To build the static library for the C++ interface with MSVC, first
build the version of GMP you want. This will produce the static C
library mpir.lib.
Then
On Jun 4, 6:51 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
That would be great Jeff. I will let Brian supply a copy of the
relevant programs, as his versions are sure to be the latest
up-to-date ones which work with Windows. It's a one off tuning to
bootstrap the tuning process, but it
On Jun 6, 8:35 pm, Jeff Gilchrist jeff.gilchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Jason Moxhamja...@njkfrudils.plus.com
wrote:
Jeff Gilchrist has a real world benchmark , ie something thats run for
purposes other than generating benchmarks. I would like to see a few of
On Jun 6, 10:25 pm, Bill Hart goodwillh...@googlemail.com wrote:
The long doubles may be a problem, but not the assembler. As it will
only be for benchmarking MPIR, we can strip the assembler and replace
it with C.
Long doubles are a problem on many platforms. But we can probably find
a
On Jun 23, 2:05 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
I cannot wait any longer for the problem to be solved.
Hello Peter,
The supported way of building MPIR for use with Visual Studio Express
is to use Visual Studio Express to build MPIR, NOT msys and mingw.
As reported here by many
On Jun 24, 9:35 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, i using Visual Studio Express C++ 2008 to build MPIR but how to
build it?
Anyone here can teach me.
Hello Peter
In order to build MPIR using Visual Studio 2008 you need to know how
to use Visual Studio Express to build
On Jun 26, 9:55 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 5:17 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 9:35 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, i using Visual Studio Express C++ 2008 to build MPIR but how to
build it?
Anyone here can teach
On Jun 30, 3:06 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 7:05 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 9:55 am, Peter_APIIT peterap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 5:17 pm, Cactus rieman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 9:35 am, Peter_APIIT peterap
1 - 100 of 483 matches
Mail list logo
