Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lucas tests with Fermat tests for free

Expand Messages
  • paulunderwooduk
    ... I compiled a better version of my code with gmp 5.0.5, on a different box running at 3.6GHz and got some better timings { 17.505s pfgw (3-prp) 1m1.986s
    Message 1 of 33 , Sep 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@...> wrote:
      :
      > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/files/Articles/

      > I ran various "minimal \lambda+2" tests on Gilbert Mozzo's 20,000 digit PRP, 5890*10^19996+2^66422-3 (x=1), using a 2.4GHz core:
      > {
      > 0m32.374s pfgw64 (3-prp)
      > 1m9.876s pfgw64 -t
      > 1m53.535s pfgw64 -tp
      > 3m0.483s pfgw64 -tc
      > 5m12.972s pfgw64 scriptify
      > 4m4.811s gmp (-O3/no pgo)
      > 4m9.148 pari-gp
      > 1m15s theoretical Woltman implementation
      > }
      >

      I compiled a better version of my code with gmp 5.0.5, on a different box running at 3.6GHz and got some better timings
      {
      17.505s pfgw (3-prp)
      1m1.986s pfgw -tp
      1m13.789s gmp (-O3/no pgo)
      }

      Paul
    • paulunderwooduk
      ... I compiled a better version of my code with gmp 5.0.5, on a different box running at 3.6GHz and got some better timings { 17.505s pfgw (3-prp) 1m1.986s
      Message 33 of 33 , Sep 21, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@...> wrote:
        :
        > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/primenumbers/files/Articles/

        > I ran various "minimal \lambda+2" tests on Gilbert Mozzo's 20,000 digit PRP, 5890*10^19996+2^66422-3 (x=1), using a 2.4GHz core:
        > {
        > 0m32.374s pfgw64 (3-prp)
        > 1m9.876s pfgw64 -t
        > 1m53.535s pfgw64 -tp
        > 3m0.483s pfgw64 -tc
        > 5m12.972s pfgw64 scriptify
        > 4m4.811s gmp (-O3/no pgo)
        > 4m9.148 pari-gp
        > 1m15s theoretical Woltman implementation
        > }
        >

        I compiled a better version of my code with gmp 5.0.5, on a different box running at 3.6GHz and got some better timings
        {
        17.505s pfgw (3-prp)
        1m1.986s pfgw -tp
        1m13.789s gmp (-O3/no pgo)
        }

        Paul
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.