On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:21:40 -0500, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Did you compile GMP with Pieck Gaudries "patch" for AMD 64 systems?
>
> If not, this will probably explain the timing difference.
The system-wide "sage" on sage.math now has the patched version of GMP.
It is also availa
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:21:40 -0500, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you compile GMP with Pieck Gaudries "patch" for AMD 64 systems?
>
> If not, this will probably explain the timing difference.
No, I didn't apply this patch yet. I'm on it.
William
--~--~-~--~~---
Did you compile GMP with Pieck Gaudries "patch" for AMD 64 systems?
If not, this will probably explain the timing difference.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMA
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:31:03 -0500, David Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>> Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
>>
>> But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use
>> MAGMA
>> to multiply 2
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:37:09 -0500, David Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>> Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
>>
>> But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use
>> MAGMA
>> to multiply 2
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:25:54 -0500, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David, did your comparative GMP/Magma timings take into account this
> MAGMA binary issue, which I presume William told you about? I.e. which
> binary of MAGMA did you measure against?
We didn't have MAGMA-2.13 back the
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
>
> But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use
> MAGMA
> to multiply 2400 degree polynomials considerably faster than they
> do it
> themselves.
I think pa
On Oct 24, 2006, at 7:25 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> David, did your comparative GMP/Magma timings take into account this
> MAGMA binary issue, which I presume William told you about? I.e. which
> binary of MAGMA did you measure against?
I'm not sure. I think it must have been the V12, 64-bit one.
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
>
> But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use
> MAGMA
> to multiply 2400 degree polynomials considerably faster than they
> do it
> themselves.
!!! :-)
D
David, did your comparative GMP/Magma timings take into account this
MAGMA binary issue, which I presume William told you about? I.e. which
binary of MAGMA did you measure against?
It interests me that MAGMA appears 2 times faster for some bit lengths.
It doesn't seem possible if they are actuall
Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use MAGMA
to multiply 2400 degree polynomials considerably faster than they do it
themselves.
Anyhow, I found another trick for going to 2^(l+2) digit numbers for
the sam
Hmm, and David's script runs in 3.2s again. That throws a few theories
out the window.
So they didn't dump their algorithm because of round off errors, or
some bug.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscr
12 matches
Mail list logo
