![]() |
![]() |
#23 | |
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK
25×32 Posts |
![]() Quote:
I think our posts have crossed. See here: https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...4&postcount=21 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK
25×32 Posts |
![]() Have done - as stated earlier in the thread, I have built libgmp from source inc succesful make, make check and sudo make install. Have also built libgmp into the 64bit folder of the gmp packages directory within the pfgw source files. Last fiddled with by lukerichards on 2019-03-18 at 21:47 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3,533 Posts |
![]() Code:
g++: error: packages/gmp/64bit/libgmp.a: No such file or directory g++: error: packages/gwnum/64bit/gwnum.a: No such file or directory The download and compile the "Prime95/mprime" source and run "make -f make64" in the gwnum directory of the source and copy the file "gwnum.a" to the directory "packages/gwnum/64bit/". Recompile PFGW. Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2019-03-18 at 22:00 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK
4408 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
100100001011102 Posts |
![]()
On Ubuntu it is not going to be a smooth sailing. First you will need to build a static lib*.a. Second you will (suddenly) find that Ubuntu doesn't have necessary static system libs... etc etc. So you will have to build those as well from scratch, or try to get them from repo.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3,533 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | |
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK
25×32 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Some success. Thanks so much for your time! Code:
user1@ubuntu-upstairs:~/openpfgw-code-r646$ make make -C pform/pflib make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pflib' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pflib' make -C pform/pfmath make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfmath' make[1]: '.libs/pfmath.a' is up to date. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfmath' make -C pform/pfgwlib make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgwlib' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgwlib' make -C pform/pfoo make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfoo' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfoo' make -C pform/pfio make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfio' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfio' make -C pform/pfgw make[1]: Entering directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgw' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/user1/openpfgw-code-r646/pform/pfgw' g++ -O3 -m64 -DX86_64 -D_64BIT -I../../packages/gmp/64bit -I../../pfconfig/headers \ pform/pfgw/.libs/pfgw_main.a pform/pfio/.libs/pfio.a pform/pfoo/.libs/pfoo.a pform/pfgwlib/.libs/pfgwlib.a \ pform/pfmath/.libs/pfmath.a pform/pflib/.libs/pflib.a \ packages/gmp/64bit/libgmp.a packages/gwnum/64bit/gwnum.a -Wl,-no_pie -lpthread -lstdc++ -o pfgw64 /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status makefile:8: recipe for target 'pfgw64' failed make: *** [pfgw64] Error 1 So... no cigar, but a bit closer! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK
25·32 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Do you have an alternative version of linux as a suggestion? I'm not wedded to Ubuntu. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3,533 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Alternatively, see the solution in this mersenneforum thread. Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2019-03-18 at 22:46 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |
Sep 2003
32·7·41 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Amazon Linux was originally derived from Centos / Red Hat. For instance, it uses yum rather than apt-get. So perhaps you could try Centos. But it seems like a lot of trouble to install a new distribution and then cross your fingers and hope the program will work. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | ||
"William"
May 2003
New Haven
44708 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Presently we know about 415 digits of factors. 26% would require over 62,500 digits of factors, so we need need over 62,000 more digits of factorization. I looked at the ECMNET annual records, took the fifth largest factor each year, and projected out to 2069. That projection says you could find 137 digit factors by ECM in 2069. Then I looked at ECPP records from the Primo pages and Caldwell's Prime pages. A similar projection indicates you might do 130,000 digit ECPP proofs by 2069. Then look at the remaining composites: C1996 C2329 C3664 C10253 C14795 C44396 C177395 C225698 The two largest ones aren't much help because even if we get a PRP residual, the PRP would still be outside of ECPP range. So we need to hope to get both the C14795 and the C44396 to factor. We would need the second largest factor of the C14795 to not exceed 137 digits. That's about G(0.003), which looks like less than half a percent, and the C44396 is even less likely. So 50 years without algorithmic improvements isn't likely. On the other hand, heat death of the universe seems overly pessimistic. ECPP should be big enough to handle the whole number by 2130. I'm not sufficiently interested, but if this were my long term hobby project I would redo the regressions using logs instead of digit counts, then forecast out five years. Check if trend lines are holding and re-forecast every five years. I would try a few other methods to see if you can beat the 2130. I would experiment with some William's terms such as n^2+n+1 and n^2-n+1 to be sure the special form of the prime didn't lead to more algebraic factorizations. When I got bored with waiting for these forecasts to mature I would think about how to forecast algorithmic improvements. Just in case anyone cares in five years, the trend lines used in this post indicate that in 2024 we should see ECM at 80 digits and ECPP at 49K digits. Yes, I know that the record ECM is already larger than that, but we need a number people can expect to reach on a composite of their choice, not the largest luckiest factor anybody has ever found. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How do I get a bigger number to test ? | mersenne1588 | Information & Answers | 6 | 2019-02-12 22:13 |
Shift Number in LL Test | Kalli Hofmann | Information & Answers | 1 | 2018-01-08 12:24 |
how can I test a number in any prime95? | Welton | Information & Answers | 7 | 2016-07-29 12:07 |
sequential number test | Bundu | Programming | 20 | 2012-02-19 18:09 |
ecm_factor returning the same number as input | Capone | GMP-ECM | 17 | 2007-06-17 09:19 |