LLR Version 3.8.6 is available!
 

Hi All,

The new version 3.8.6 of LLR is now available on my personal site :

[url]http://jpenne.free.fr/index2.html[/url]

This version is identical to development Version 3.8.5, but uses Version 26.6 of George Woltman's gwnum library.

Please see Readme.txt file for details.

Best Regards,
Jean

P.S. : I still need help to build the Mac Intel binary...

I had to poke the Makefile a little to get it to build on Mac Intel:
[LIST][*]I only have /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.5.sdk not .4u.sdk so changed .4u to .5 throughout[*]multutil.o is no longer present in gwnum.a so the code to pull it out explicitly isn't needed[/LIST]
I have run
[code]
./llr -a3 -oVerbose=4 -d -q"3*2^234760-1"
[/code]
successfully (67.3 sec on not-very-idle i7 iMac)

Jean,

if it easy for you, please add a switch like:

[CODE]FBase=<number> : The base for the Fermat PRP test (default is 3)[/CODE]

except for the Lucas test, maybe called "LBase". I am only interested in varying P and having Q=1. Of course I am interested in the jacobi symbol of (P^2-4*Q,N) being -1, which does not take long to determine with pari-gp :wink:

I am currently using a pfgw64 script, but it runs like treacle

Paul :smile:

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;263698]Jean,

if it easy for you, please add a switch like:

[CODE]FBase=<number> : The base for the Fermat PRP test (default is 3)[/CODE]

except for the Lucas test, maybe called "LBase". I am only interested in varying P and having Q=1. Of course I am interested in the jacobi symbol of (P^2-4*Q,N) being -1, which does not take long to determine with pari-gp :wink:

I am currently using a pfgw64 script, but it runs like treacle

Paul :smile:[/QUOTE]


This option does exist, but is not shown in the Readme file, sorry...

It is : PBase=<number>
Note it is only the initial P value, not necessarily the relevant one, that will be computed by the genLucasBaseP() function, starting from this value, and having Q=1 as you requested.

Regards,
Jean

Just out of curiosity I tried to compile the latest source (3.8.6) for Linux 64 bit, but I'm getting the following error:

[CODE]make: *** No rule to make target `factor64p.o', needed by `llr'. Stop.[/CODE]

Is there something missing in the ZIP file, or do need to run some additional "preparational" commands elsewhere in the source tree?

BTW.: I get the same error for the older 3.8.4 sources.

Kind regards,

Thomas

[QUOTE=Thomas11;274876]Just out of curiosity I tried to compile the latest source (3.8.6) for Linux 64 bit, but I'm getting the following error:

[CODE]make: *** No rule to make target `factor64p.o', needed by `llr'. Stop.[/CODE]

Is there something missing in the ZIP file, or do need to run some additional "preparational" commands elsewhere in the source tree?

BTW.: I get the same error for the older 3.8.4 sources.[/QUOTE]

Simple. LLR cannot be built as a 64-bit app (yet) because a factor routine it relies on is written in 32-bit asm.

[QUOTE=rogue;274878]Simple. LLR cannot be built as a 64-bit app (yet) because a factor routine it relies on is written in 32-bit asm.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, I see. Thanks!
I always wondered why there are only 32-bit binaries while the source tree contains those 64-bit directories and build targets...

[QUOTE=Thomas11;274893]Ahh, I see. Thanks!
I always wondered why there are only 32-bit binaries while the source tree contains those 64-bit directories and build targets...[/QUOTE]

If you have a 64-bit OS, then use pfgw (if the projects you work on allow it). It will be faster than 32-bit llr in most cases, and in some cases much faster than llr.

[QUOTE=rogue;274905]If you have a 64-bit OS, then use pfgw (if the projects you work on allow it). It will be faster than 32-bit llr in most cases, and in some cases much faster than llr.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that hint. I will give it a try.

So far I used pfgw only for "pathological" cases, e.g. very large k values (like for Roberts Smith's [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=9755"]Very Prime Sequences (VPS)[/URL], also known as Payam sequences), which cannot be treated by LLR.

[QUOTE=rogue;274905]If you have a 64-bit OS, then use pfgw (if the projects you work on allow it). It will be faster than 32-bit llr in most cases, and in some cases much faster than llr.[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile I did some tests using 64-bit pfgw vs. 32-bit LLR (running both on a 64-bit Core2 Linux machine).
And indeed I found that pfgw performs slightly better, e.g. for base>2 tests it seems to be about 7% faster than LLR.

So, again, thanks for your advise!

[QUOTE=Thomas11;275792]Meanwhile I did some tests using 64-bit pfgw vs. 32-bit LLR (running both on a 64-bit Core2 Linux machine).
And indeed I found that pfgw performs slightly better, e.g. for base>2 tests it seems to be about 7% faster than LLR.[/QUOTE]

The speed increase appears to be dependent upon the values of k and b and the CPU the software is run on. Some combinations will see more than a 30% increase in speed. Even for base 2, pfgw64 is faster than LLR on my laptop.