20110218, 16:33  #1 
Mar 2007
Austria
302_{10} Posts 
Yet another LLR bug
I have observed the following in LLR version 3.8.5:
When testing 10^500+961, LLR tells me: Code:
Starting probable prime test of 10^500+961 10^500+961 is not prime, although base 3Fermat PSP!! Time : 32.815 ms. Nugget Last fiddled with by nuggetprime on 20110218 at 16:34 
20110218, 17:12  #2  
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
2^{2}×1,607 Posts 
Quote:


20110218, 17:51  #3 
Mar 2007
Austria
2×151 Posts 
Normally,LLR outputs when it can't prove a number prime:
Code:
Starting probable prime test of 2^21954+77899 2^21954+77899 is base 3Strong Fermat PRP! Time : 1.728 sec. Starting Lucas sequence 2^21954+77899 is Lucas PRP, Starting Frobenius test sequence 2^21954+77899 is Frobenius PRP! (P = 4, Q = 2, D = 8) Time : 6.928 sec. So I think it really is a bug. Last fiddled with by nuggetprime on 20110218 at 17:53 
20110218, 17:57  #4 
Mar 2007
Austria
2×151 Posts 
Another problem
Code:
./llr3.8.5 d q5*10^19737+3 Starting probable prime test of 5*10^19737+3 5*10^19737+3 is base 3Strong Fermat PRP! Time : 12.733 sec. Starting Lucas sequence Speicherzugriffsfehlerlength 4K, P = 4, Q = 2 
20110223, 12:31  #5 
Mar 2007
Austria
2·151 Posts 
BUMPed.
Also forwarded to Jean Penne. 
20110228, 21:14  #6 
May 2004
FRANCE
1104_{8} Posts 
The two bugs on LLR 3.8.5 are fixed!
Hi,
These two bugs are now fixed :  For 10^500+961, it is really a bug of the strong Fermat PRP code in the Llr.c file. It will be fixed in the Development version ; here is the correct behaviour : Starting probable prime test of 10^500+961 Using allcomplex FFT length 192, a = 3 10^500+961 is base 3Strong Fermat PRP! Time : 121.052 ms. Starting Lucas sequence Using allcomplex FFT length 192, P = 5, Q = 3 10^500+961 is strongFermat and Lucas PRP, Starting Frobenius test sequence Using allcomplex FFT length 192, Q = 3 10^500+961 is strongFermat, Lucas and Frobenius PRP! (P = 5, Q = 3, D = 13) Time : 72.780 ms. For 5*10^19737+3, it is a gwnum problem : gwnum chooses a fullcomplex 4K FFT, which seems to be too small, and causes a segmentation fault after a few iterations... And the test works if I force the program to choose the third next larger FFT! Here is the result, using the uncorrected LLR on Linux : ~/llr385src/linuxllr $ ./llr a3 oVerbose=1 oLucasPRPtest=1 oFFT_Increment=3 d q"5*10^19737+3" Starting Lucas sequence 5*10^19737+3 is Lucas PRP, Starting Frobenius test sequence 5*10^19737+3 is Frobenius PRP! (P = 4, Q = 2, D = 8) Time : 127.685 sec. The chosen FFT is then Zero padded 10K... Note : The oLucasPRPtest=1 is necessary here, to skip the Fermat test which reset the FFT increment at its completion... This drawback will be corrected in the Development version. I shall release it soon... I shall also warn George about this gwnum problem. Best Regards, Jean 
20110228, 21:52  #7  
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
6428_{10} Posts 
Quote:


20110228, 23:37  #8 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2^{4}·3^{2}·53 Posts 
What system is this? A PRP test using 32bit Windows Prime95 on a Core 2 works using a 4K FFT.

20110301, 21:10  #9  
May 2004
FRANCE
2^{2}·5·29 Posts 
Proble with c!=1 and IBDWT...
Quote:
I can now add some precisions about this problem : It occurs each time I am running a Lucas PRP test on a k*b^n+c number with c != 1 AND a full complex FFT is chosen.  If I force a larger FFT, the test works as soon as Zero padded is chosen.  It works also if I force generic reduction.  No matter if the base b is two or not...  Surprisingly, the simple strong Fermat PRP test (which uses only gwsquare) works always! For the Lucas test, I get a segmentation fault on these two systems : On Windows 2000 and VC 6.0 : CPU Information: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.53GHz CPU speed: 2533.16 MHz CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2 L1 cache size: 8 KB L2 cache size: 512 KB On Linux with 32 bit gcc and gwnum library : CPU Information: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+ CPU speed: 2199.85 MHz CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2 L1 cache size: 64 KB L2 cache size: 1024 KB I hope it will help... Regards, Jean 

20110301, 22:16  #10 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
191C_{16} Posts 
I was able to reproduce this on Windows (in LLR). The problem is triggered by this line:
gwfftmul (gwdata, tmp2, tmp4); /* Compute s*random */ in gwmul_carefully. Both tmp2 and tmp4 are good values. 
20110302, 01:20  #11 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2^{4}×3^{2}×53 Posts 
Ugh, I cannot reproduce in Prime95 using my QA code that calls every gwnum routine.
I did download and compile the LLR source, but don't know how to use it. Can you upload an input file that exhibits the problem? Thanks. 