mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-01-05, 13:56   #1
T.Rex
 
T.Rex's Avatar
 
Feb 2004
France

3×5×61 Posts
Default Bug with LLR !!

Hi,

I've found a bug with LLR (Lucas-Lehmer-Riesel) version 3.7.2 .

Given a specific Wagstaff exponent, I get a different residue each time I test it on Intel HW (Core2 and Xeon)
Double-check on Intel HW over about 1200 other exponents is OK.
Verification of this exponent on Opteron is OK (2 identical residues for 2 checks).

So, it seems that some range of exponents may lead to a wrong random Residue.

Jean Penné does not answer to emails since a while (I think is 75 and he may have stopped reading emails. I'll try to get news from him).

Since LLR makes use of prime95 core code, there is also the possibility that the bug is common with prime95 (at least with an old version of Prime95).

I need help from LLR and Prime95 experts.

Who can help ?

Thanks,

Tony
T.Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 15:43   #2
ldesnogu
 
ldesnogu's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
France

3·181 Posts
Default

Sorry if this is a stupid idea: what about picking the sources, replace gwnum with its latest source, recompile and test again? That could at least make a gwnum bug less probable.
ldesnogu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 15:50   #3
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

189316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.Rex View Post
Hi,

I've found a bug with LLR (Lucas-Lehmer-Riesel) version 3.7.2 .

Given a specific Wagstaff exponent, I get a different residue each time I test it on Intel HW (Core2 and Xeon)
Double-check on Intel HW over about 1200 other exponents is OK.
Verification of this exponent on Opteron is OK (2 identical residues for 2 checks).

So, it seems that some range of exponents may lead to a wrong random Residue.

Jean Penné does not answer to emails since a while (I think is 75 and he may have stopped reading emails. I'll try to get news from him).

Since LLR makes use of prime95 core code, there is also the possibility that the bug is common with prime95 (at least with an old version of Prime95).

I need help from LLR and Prime95 experts.

Who can help ?

Thanks,

Tony
Run the test with PFGW. If you get consistent residues, then the problem is with LLR. If not, then it is with gwnum.
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 15:57   #4
diep
 
diep's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
The Netherlands

26·11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
Run the test with PFGW. If you get consistent residues, then the problem is with LLR. If not, then it is with gwnum.
Could be bug in CPU also that pops up. There is like 250 bugs found in core2's later on, bios cannot fix them all.
diep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 16:26   #5
ldesnogu
 
ldesnogu's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
France

3·181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diep View Post
Could be bug in CPU also that pops up. There is like 250 bugs found in core2's later on, bios cannot fix them all.
That's not impossible, but the probability is extremely low: after all did Prime95 hit any CPU computation bug? And LLR is using the same code base.

Also aren't most of the 250 bugs (BTW I only found about 100 in Intel doc) very specific to system? I mean I'm not aware of a bug such as the infamous DIV bug found a few years ago.
ldesnogu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 16:37   #6
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2·29·101 Posts
Default

Is there a way to forcefully make the FFT length higher to hopefully get a correct result?
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 16:38   #7
kar_bon
 
kar_bon's Avatar
 
Mar 2006
Germany

2×11×131 Posts
Default

Maybe another reason:

The EXE for V3.7.2 is from 2008-09-13 and from V3.7.1c from 2009-05-17!

I've send Yves in December 2008 an issue about residues with V3.7.1c with small n-values,
the example was a twin: 7945335*2^5426+/-1

With the 'old' version i got this for example:
7945335*2^5426+1 is not prime. Proth RES64: D634636A24EF9A52

After his corrections it's all ok with:
7945335*2^5426-1 is prime!
7945335*2^5426+1 is prime!

So there's a difference in the LLR versions: V3.7.2 is not corrected to that issue i think!
kar_bon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 16:46   #8
T.Rex
 
T.Rex's Avatar
 
Feb 2004
France

3·5·61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ldesnogu View Post
Sorry if this is a stupid idea: what about picking the sources, replace gwnum with its latest source, recompile and test again? That could at least make a gwnum bug less probable.
Not stupid at all. However, I know nothing about how LLR is built. There is gwnum in source259.zip of Prime95. But there are so many files... Aren't there people who already know how to upgrade LLR with a fresher version of gwnum ?
Tony
T.Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 16:49   #9
T.Rex
 
T.Rex's Avatar
 
Feb 2004
France

3·5·61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue View Post
Run the test with PFGW. If you get consistent residues, then the problem is with LLR. If not, then it is with gwnum.
How do you ask PFGW to output a residue ?
Tony
T.Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 16:56   #10
rogue
 
rogue's Avatar
 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

33·233 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.Rex View Post
How do you ask PFGW to output a residue ?
Tony
If you are not using the -t switch, it will always output the residue, but the base 2 residues with PFGW will not match those from LLR. Other bases will match. My point was that if you can run base 2 tests with PFGW and get consistent residues, then the issue is with LLR and not gwnum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
Is there a way to forcefully make the FFT length higher to hopefully get a correct result?
Use -a1 or -a2 with PFGW
rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-05, 16:57   #11
T.Rex
 
T.Rex's Avatar
 
Feb 2004
France

39316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diep View Post
Could be bug in CPU also that pops up. There is like 250 bugs found in core2's later on, bios cannot fix them all.
The bug also appears on Intel Xeon. I will test ASAP on Nehalem.
Tony
T.Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 00:10.

Wed Apr 21 00:10:35 UTC 2021 up 12 days, 18:51, 0 users, load averages: 4.07, 3.53, 3.56

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.