On Jan 11, 3:23 am, Bill Hart <[email protected]> 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 project - give credit where it is due). In such a > volume of code, I am sure you can find many problems if you look. > > No big project can avoid such things. Look on the gmp-bugs list for > the last few years. They too have their share of issues. Every large > software project does. All we can hope is to make it better. > > Your comments certainly have done that! > > So thanks for your comments! > > Bill. > > 2010/1/11 Gianrico Fini <[email protected]>: > > > Oh, sorry.... > > > It's better for me to really go to bad. > > > 'night! > > > Gian. > > > On 11 Gen, 04:11, Bill Hart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Go back and read what I wrote. > > >> 2010/1/11 Gianrico Fini <[email protected]>: > > >> > Hei! And what about the same mess on mersenne? > > >> > Gian. > > >> > On 11 Gen, 04:03, Bill Hart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Brian, > > >> >> I don't know if you've been following the discussion with Gianrico.... > > >> >> ....but would it be possible to change the benchmark code so that when > >> >> running the benchmark linked against GMP it prints something like: > > >> >> "Warning: using (slow) *simulated* mpn_mulmod_2expp1" in the Fermat > >> >> test." > > >> >> Actually I thought they had such a function now. But I think I am > >> >> wrong about this. > > >> >> Similarly, for GMP < 5.0.0 can we print a similar warning for the > >> >> mpn_mulmod_2expm1 function used in the Mersenne test. > > >> >> And for >= GMP 5.0.0 can we use their new mpn_mulmod_bnm1 function, > >> >> which is presumably the equivalent of Jason's mpn_mulmod_2expm1 > >> >> function. > > >> >> It would be good to issue this along with the MPIR 1.3.0 release when > >> >> we finally get it out. I've sorted out the remaining tickets, but I'm > >> >> having autoconf troubles again.... > > >> >> Bill. > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > Groups "mpir-devel" group. > >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > [email protected]. > >> > For more options, visit this group > >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "mpir-devel" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
Hi Bill, I'll look at what I can do but I am afraid I am quite busy right now so it might not get done quickly. I wrote the benchmark he is using to compare different versions of MPIR and hence monitor our own progress. It is most definitely NOT suitable for naively comparing MPIR and GMP and should not be used for this purpsoe. It mightb be worth adding a comment to this effect on our site. It seems pretty obvious to me that a fair comparison between GMP and MPIR reqires a benchmark from a neutral third party, not one from a person such as myself who is a closely involved contributer to one of these but plays no part whatsoever in the other. Brian
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
