mersenneforum.org Compiling Phrot
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2008-12-23, 02:46   #133
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

7·13·71 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Well, this range had actually been run with 0.61 from the beginning--so, any and all checkpoint/phrot.ini files had been saved by 0.61. If I remember correctly, yes, the LastLine= value was a little off in 0.61, but in 0.52 it's right on.
Are you certain that you were using 0.61, not 0.60? I spent a lot of time addressing this in 0.60, thus the 0.61 release. It is possible I missed a case. Did LastLine point to the last completed test of your input file or not?

2008-12-23, 02:52   #134
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

624910 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogue Are you certain that you were using 0.61, not 0.60? I spent a lot of time addressing this in 0.60, thus the 0.61 release. It is possible I missed a case. Did LastLine point to the last completed test of your input file or not?
I'm sure that I was using 0.61. However, I don't quite remember exactly what LastLine pointed to. I'll run some tests on it later tonight and report back here with the results.

2008-12-23, 03:24   #135
geoff

Mar 2003
New Zealand

13×89 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler I'm sure that I was using 0.61. However, I don't quite remember exactly what LastLine pointed to. I'll run some tests on it later tonight and report back here with the results.
If you are using the binary from my site then it could be that I didn't compile it from the latest source. I'll check and upload another binary tomorrow if necessary.

2008-12-23, 03:55   #136
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by geoff If you are using the binary from my site then it could be that I didn't compile it from the latest source. I'll check and upload another binary tomorrow if necessary.
Yes, I am using the binary from your site--thanks.

2008-12-24, 00:35   #137
geoff

Mar 2003
New Zealand

13·89 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Yes, I am using the binary from your site--thanks.
I have just uploaded a new binary, the old one was built from the wrong source and didn't update phrot.ini properly.

2008-12-24, 00:58   #138
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by geoff I have just uploaded a new binary, the old one was built from the wrong source and didn't update phrot.ini properly.
Thanks! I'll try it out sometime tonight.

2008-12-24, 03:06   #139
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Thanks! I'll try it out sometime tonight.
Okay, I've checked it out, and all seems well. Thanks!

 2009-01-05, 17:39 #140 thommy     Dec 2006 418 Posts I'm awaiting the PRPnet server for srb5. Nice work, Mark. Last fiddled with by thommy on 2009-01-05 at 17:39
 2009-01-09, 02:41 #141 geoff     Mar 2003 New Zealand 13×89 Posts For anyone who has been using the Windows Phrot executable I posted at http://www.geocities.com/g_w_reynolds/phrot/ I am sorry to report that versions 0.52 to 0.62 had a fault that caused the PRP residue to be printed incorrectly. If you are using the Windows executable from one of these versions then please download version 0.63 to replace it. The fault didn't affect the calculation of the residue itself, only the printing, so there is no need to fear that a PRP would have been missed. But it means that the first 8 digits of the PRP residue will not match a double-check. The Linux executables were not affected, and the Cygwin Windows executable in the original source doesn't suffer from this fault, just the one posted on my site above.
 2009-01-09, 03:07 #142 mdettweiler A Sunny Moo     Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3×2,083 Posts I was just testing Geoff's Linux build of Phrot 0.63 on some Phrot numbers a moment ago, and they don't match up with the respective LLR residuals, even when I specify -b=3 on the command line: Code: Phrot: 3*2^12348+1 is composite LLR64=05f1d8bfc1ff6e88. (t=0.69s) LLR: 3*2^12348+1 is not prime. Proth RES64: 5DBFF15E5EF169ED Time : 263.788 ms. Yet, it matches the residual produced by PRP: Code: 3*2^12348+1 is not prime. RES64: 05F1D8BFC1FF6E88. OLD64: 11D58A3F45FE4B95 Time: 248.767 ms. Possibly there's some bug in Phrot that's keeping it from "knowing" when to do a Proth test on k*2^n+1 numbers, and thus it's doing a PRP test instead, like it would do for any other number?
2009-01-09, 03:42   #143
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

7×13×71 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler I was just testing Geoff's Linux build of Phrot 0.63 on some Phrot numbers a moment ago, and they don't match up with the respective LLR residuals, even when I specify -b=3 on the command line: Code: Phrot: 3*2^12348+1 is composite LLR64=05f1d8bfc1ff6e88. (t=0.69s) LLR: 3*2^12348+1 is not prime. Proth RES64: 5DBFF15E5EF169ED Time : 263.788 ms. Yet, it matches the residual produced by PRP: Code: 3*2^12348+1 is not prime. RES64: 05F1D8BFC1FF6E88. OLD64: 11D58A3F45FE4B95 Time: 248.767 ms. Possibly there's some bug in Phrot that's keeping it from "knowing" when to do a Proth test on k*2^n+1 numbers, and thus it's doing a PRP test instead, like it would do for any other number?
See here

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post masser Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 27 2010-09-08 03:10 rogue Conjectures 'R Us 33 2010-01-22 19:39 masser Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 8 2009-08-18 19:44 thommy Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 1 2008-11-03 14:53 mdettweiler Programming 0 2008-04-07 21:25

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:03.

Mon Nov 29 18:03:13 UTC 2021 up 129 days, 12:32, 0 users, load averages: 1.01, 1.27, 1.32