As a note, hwloc 2.0.4 is now the latest stable release: [url]https://www.open-mpi.org/software/hwloc/v2.0[/url]

[QUOTE=Bigeagle;518891]thanks for your help :)
sadly updating is always a nasty thing since microsoft did some ... strange things to their update mechanism in win7 so it's always likely to fail without manual help and absolutely needs a full backup
i think i will try that if i got some time


probably the easiest thing concerning this (and other problems) would be to get a still supported OS, but linux is out of question on this machine (would be so easy ...) and win10 is uhm ... troublesome of it's own. at least in my personal opinion

let alone all that hassle with the updates there. sometime in the future when the owner is forced to drop win7 things will get very 'interesting' ^^
until then i'm happy if it works without too much problems since i'm the 'tech guy'[/QUOTE]

Side note: I've been working on a little project to update systems from Win7 to Win10, and it actually works pretty well.

The trickiest part is converting the system itself to UEFI since that involves running mbr2gpt once the update is done, and then making sure to change the appropriate BIOS settings to match. Of course, that's if you care about UEFI... you may not.

The OS update itself though... pretty solid in my experience.

May you add support to FMA4 FFT and XOP FFT for Bulldozer?

[QUOTE=Bulldozer;519338]May you add support to FMA4 FFT and XOP FFT for Bulldozer?[/QUOTE]

I believe they would add very little over FMA3. They are also no longer supported on new CPUs.

[QUOTE=Prime95;516655]I don't think so. Do you still have the example?[/QUOTE]

I've uploaded a "bad" P-1 save file here: [url]https://workupload.com/file/EPLrREPc[/url]

I suspect the issue is related to what Kriesel is seeing: [url]https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=508877&postcount=4[/url]

[QUOTE=ixfd64;516561]Are P-1 save files incompatible between versions 29.4 and 29.8 on macOS?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

A bug was fixed in version 29.4 build 7 which made P-1 save files in the first stage incompatible with prior versions. Thanks for the example save file.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;516638]I noticed a minor inconsistency: Prime95 always appends two newlines to [C]results.bench.txt[/C] when it adds en entry. In the other results files, Prime95 only adds one newline at a time. I assume this is unintentional.[/QUOTE]

I think I found the cause. In the [C]commonb.c[/C] file, there is an extra line of code:

[CODE]writeResultsBench ("\n");[/CODE]

George, can you confirm whether this is intended?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;519554]I think I found the cause. In the [C]commonb.c[/C] file, there is an extra line of code:

[CODE]writeResultsBench ("\n");[/CODE]

George, can you confirm whether this is intended?[/QUOTE]

I think the extra newline looks good.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree it improves the readability of the benchmark results.

However, you may still want to look at the issue where the timestamp is printed when there are no further results: [url]https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=516838&postcount=226[/url]

I recently set up Prime95 on my new MacBook Pro. This computer has a dual-core processor. I want to run two workers using one core each, but the option to adjust the number of cores per worker is greyed out. Prime95 complains there is not enough cores to run all workers when I try to save the settings. I've set [C]WorkerThreads=2[/C] and [C]CoresPerTest=1[/C] in my [C]local.txt[/C] file, but the issue persists.

Just cosmetic "bug"
Win version 29.8 build 3
I run light P-1 on candidate like this
Pminus1=1,115000020,262144,1,5000,80000
Prediction time per test that Prime95 show is about 7 days, and on one core i5-3570K it is finished in 360 seconds.