On Jul 22, 11:48 am, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2008, at 12:35 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> This seems to have been fixed already in 3.0.5. Sorry for the noise.
>
> david
Hi David,
we reverted to the old gmp 4.2.1 spkg in 3.0.5 since the only reason
to upgrade was to b
On Jul 22, 2008, at 12:35 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, I can confirm that with sage 3.0.1, sage -gp has the same
>>> speed
>>> as my standalone GP build. So mostly likely the change to GMP 4.2.2
>>> introduced a speed regression (probably the core 2 patches not being
>>> applied proper
On Jun 9, 2008, at 10:36 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>> Okay, I can confirm that with sage 3.0.1, sage -gp has the same speed
>> as my standalone GP build. So mostly likely the change to GMP 4.2.2
>> introduced a speed regression (probably the core 2 patches not being
>> applied properly).
>
> Ok, I will
On Jun 9, 7:01 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:58 PM, William Stein wrote:
> > The last version, so that we could build on cygwin, and also it was
> > needed
> > for OS X 10.5 64-bit. We will switch to mpir soon, as soon as
> > there is a
> > release :
On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:58 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:43 PM, David Harvey
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Michael Abshoff wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if we are just building GMP incorrectly. That bernfrac()
>>>
>>> routine should depend mainly o
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:31 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 3:20 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:19 -0700, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>> >> [...]
>> >> No clue. Can you a
On Jun 9, 3:20 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:19 -0700, mabshoff wrote:
>
> >> [...]
> >> No clue. Can you actually compare the gp binary from Sage directly
> >> with the timings from your sel
On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:19 -0700, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> No clue. Can you actually compare the gp binary from Sage directly
>> with the timings from your self builid binary to eliminate the
>> problem
>> that libPari is involved her
Hi Bill,
On Jun 9, 3:07 pm, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't gmp 4.2.1 build on cygwin? Do you happen to recall what the
> issues were, as it'll be a problem for mpir too (though I did manage
> one build on cygwin already).
>
> Bill.
At some point after a recent Cygwin update gmp 4
Doesn't gmp 4.2.1 build on cygwin? Do you happen to recall what the
issues were, as it'll be a problem for mpir too (though I did manage
one build on cygwin already).
Bill.
On 9 Jun, 22:58, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:43 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:43 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Michael Abshoff wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if we are just building GMP incorrectly. That bernfrac()
>>
>> routine should depend mainly on the speed of long integer
>> multiplication and division. I a
On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Michael Abshoff wrote:
> I wonder if we are just building GMP incorrectly. That bernfrac()
> routine should depend mainly on the speed of long integer
> multiplication and division. I am not a GP expert --- how does one
> generate large random integers in GP? I could t
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:27 PM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:19 -0700, mabshoff wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> No clue. Can you actually compare the gp binary from Sage directly
> >> with the timings
On Jun 9, 2008, at 5:17 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:19 -0700, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> No clue. Can you actually compare the gp binary from Sage directly
>> with the timings from your self builid binary to eliminate the
>> problem
>> that libPari is involved he
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:19 -0700, mabshoff wrote:
>
> [...]
> No clue. Can you actually compare the gp binary from Sage directly
> with the timings from your self builid binary to eliminate the problem
> that libPari is involved here? If the gp binary in Sage is slower by a
> factor of three com
On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:19 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 10:05 am, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi David,
>
>> This is on an 8-core 2GHz xeon running debian. (Tom Boothby's
>> machine.)
>>
>> In a clean build of sage-3.0.2:
>>
>> sage: time x = bernoulli(4)
>> CP
FYI, when I computed bernoulli(10^7+4), I did so from sage -gp -- not from the
sage interface to gp.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, David Harvey wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is on an 8-core 2GHz xeon running debian. (Tom Boothby's machine.)
>
> In a clean build of sage-3.0.2:
>
> sage: time x = bernoulli(4000
On Jun 9, 10:05 am, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi David,
> This is on an 8-core 2GHz xeon running debian. (Tom Boothby's machine.)
>
> In a clean build of sage-3.0.2:
>
> sage: time x = bernoulli(4)
> CPU times: user 4.19 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 4.20 s
> Wall time: 4.20 s
18 matches
Mail list logo
