Prime95 beta version 28.3

[TheMawn]

Another roundoff message. This one was 0.4375 but reproducible. I'm up to four since the release and had one between May 2013 and January 2014 using 27.7.

[pepi37]

Since Prime95 is VERY USEFULL in searching "big primes" but still can do only PRP test, can you add some option like you add it for "Make nosie if new Mersenne prime is found", but for PRP ( like noise, flashing icon.. or something liek that)

Thanks

[Ethan Hansen]

Originally Posted by chalsall

George.

I don't know under what environment you complied the Linux version in, but under CentOS 6.4 I get the following:

[chalsall@backup t]$ ./mprime -v
./mprime: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by ./mprime)
./mprime: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by ./mprime)

Any chance we could get a "statically linked" version?

I'm finding the same problem with both Centos and RHEL systems. Running on older Centos/RHEL distros gives more errors still. For example on Centos 5.10, I see:

$ ./mprime -v
./mprime: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by ./mprime)
./mprime: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by ./mprime)
./mprime: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.7' not found (required by ./mprime)
./mprime: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.11' not found (required by ./mprime)

*nix systems support running older code on new systems, but not the other way around. The problem chalsall and I are seeing likely stems from George compiling on Ubuntu, which always included the latest and greatest of everything. Centos/RHEL is more conservative, particularly when running mprime on an older system. Any chance of compiling mprime in a VM with a non-Debian based linux installed?