|
Bill Allombert on Sat, 15 Jul 2023 11:13:20 +0200
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
|
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 01:05:08AM +0200, hermann@stamm-wilbrandt.de wrote:
> Since Pari/GP user guide proposes in section 1.2 to use gmp kernel, you
> might want to upstream your base 2 powm() enhancements to gmplib?
Sure, but for some other prime numbers, it seems to be slower than GMP,
hence my enquiry.
For example, could you try
p=fibonacci(148091); Mod(2,p)^((p-1)/4)
and
p=fibonacci(148091); Mod(3,p)^((p-1)/4)
but more importantly, we do not do anything clever.
So I suspect the bit pattern of the exponent to be relevant.
Cheers,
Bill
- References:
- Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
- From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux.fr>
- Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
- From: hermann@stamm-wilbrandt.de
- Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
- From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux.fr>
- Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
- From: hermann@stamm-wilbrandt.de
- Prev by Date:
Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
- Next by Date:
Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
- Previous by thread:
Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
- Next by thread:
Re: Why is "lift(Mod(qnr, n)^(n\4))" 16% slower than C libgmp "powm(r, qnr, n/4, n)" ?
- Index(es):