Testing new Ranges for Sierpinski/Riesel

[wombatman]

I'm pretty sure

ERROR m 1e10: argument out of range

goes with srsieve. There's this line in the main.cpp code:

sprintf(command, "srsieve -q -m1e10 -P%"PRIu64" -n%d -N%d -w sieve.in", max_p, n_min, n_max);

If I remember, that command suppresses the printing of any found factors to the screen unless they're greater than the value provided (here, 1e10). If your -P value is less than 1e10, it basically guarantees silent operation. With that said, no idea why it would throw an error.

[MyDogBuster]

Found the problem. Had an old version of srsieve. Thanks Kenneth and Ben

[KEP]

Originally Posted by MyDogBuster

Found the problem. Had an old version of srsieve. Thanks Kenneth and Ben

Great

Looking forward to see how fast you can complete the range

[MyDogBuster]

Next problem. Error open file sr_b.pfgw I have a file sr_3.pfgw. ??

[wombatman]

Try deleting the checkpoint file and make sure you're starting fresh?

[MyDogBuster]

Started fresh. Still asking for sr_b.pfgw.

sr_3.pfgw keeps coming and going and it looks like it's working.

SRSieve is removing candidates and every once in a while I get a phase progress report.

Also seeing "no factoring at all, not even trivial division"

[wombatman]

That last line is from pfgw with "-f0" being passed to it. No idea on the rest. Sorry.

[pepi37]

It was something like in my post

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=127

Solution: dont use any version with checkpoint :)

[rogue]

As for the missing ( and ), I'll add them. Without them you might get a memory exception.

Yes, the checkpoint version doesn't work. I have been way to busy to test it. Please use the last version I posted before adding checkpoint code.

If it stops for some reason while sieving or running pfgw, you can recover manually, but then can't use srbsieve to complete the range.

[wombatman]

Originally Posted by rogue

As for the missing ( and ), I'll add them. Without them you might get a memory exception.

I'll be curious to see if I was right or not. I was playing with it in python, and with the parentheses where I thought they should go, it threw an index out of bounds error. With them where they are now, it worked flawlessly. But I'm not a solid programmer, so it could easily have been a mistake I made somewhere.

[pepi37]

Originally Posted by wombatman

I'll be curious to see if I was right or not. I was playing with it in python, and with the parentheses where I thought they should go, it threw an index out of bounds error. With them where they are now, it worked flawlessly. But I'm not a solid programmer, so it could easily have been a mistake I made somewhere.

I try to edit code, add ( ) as you say ,and compile again under Linux
Compilation process is fine but srbieve crash at start...

~/test# ./srbsieve
Status (00:00:00): Started with 2501 terms
*** Error in `./srbsieve': double free or corruption (out): 0x00000000023883a0 ***
Aborted