Interesting question. I'm thinking on it...
Why do you ask?
Why? That's very easy:
What effect have WU's with uncorect results? I thing that this effect is very low - I can say it's negative. In this case it may be better use original binary or some other from your binaries without this problem.
Is this problem only by C37 or the same code (which caused the differencies from standard binary) is used in all your binaries?
Interesting question. I'm thinking on it...
Why do you ask?
Why? That's very easy:
What effect have WU's with uncorect results? I thing that this effect is very low - I can say it's negative. In this case it may be better use original binary or some other from your binaries without this problem.
Is this problem only by C37 or the same code (which caused the differencies from standard binary) is used in all your binaries?
Well, I did these unofficial codes because of fun, but I shared at the reques of some people.
I never said that you should use it, and I don't say that.
So, everybody got a chance to open Pandora's box. "Use at you own risk."
I don't want to guarantee anything, because I cannot do that.
... Well, I did these unofficial codes because of fun, but I shared at the reques of some people.
I never said that you should use it, and I don't say that.
So, everybody got a chance to open Pandora's box. "Use at you own risk."
I don't want to guarantee anything, because I cannot do that.
Akosf,
Don't worry about any guarantee - leave all that worry to the project owners and their choice(s) for "official" apps, where it rightfully should lie.
If you can continue to have fun at this, please, maintain that beautiful frame of mind. We are very grateful for all that you have done.
Michael R.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
Thanks for these infos!
I hoped that C37 will be much faster on your K6 machines...
I tried to find the reason of the validation problem.
I know that the precision of C37 has to be very near to the original.
I made a code that gave poor results, but the validator accepted them!
So, I examined the codes again and I saw there is a critical point.
Sometimes the exponent of the number format is not enough.
Probably this is the reason of the validation problem of SSE based linux application too.
edit:
exponent size of SSE -> 8 bit
exponent size of SSE2 -> 11 bit
exponent size of FPU -> 15 bit
I figured the cause of the failures was something like that, most likely in combination with a fairly tight tolerance band at the project validator end of things.
FWIW, it looked like C37 was somewhat faster than 387 on the K6-2, but that's hard to say conclusively with just a handful of results pushed through so far.
I just took a closer look at the K6-2's results, and it looks like one of the failures might be due to the project database work last week rather than a calculational precision problem from the app. In any event, I'm going to run a few more C37's through them to make for a better test.
Well, I did these unofficial codes because of fun, but I shared at the reques of some people.
I never said that you should use it, and I don't say that.
So, everybody got a chance to open Pandora's box. "Use at you own risk."
I don't want to guarantee anything, because I cannot do that.
Akosf, you need not apologize, guarantee, nor make any amends for your work. What you have done is excellent, a grand stroke not only for Science but also for the people who just like crunching. If you were local to me, I'd buy you a large selection of the the beverage of your choice.
What you have done is excellent, a grand stroke not only for Science but also for the people who just like crunching. If you were local to me, I'd buy you a large selection of the the beverage of your choice.
cheers,
-jim
Me too! You are a very gifted individual, and we appreciate that you are sharing the fruits of those gifts with all of us! :)
RE: My question was on your
)
Interesting question. I'm thinking on it...
Why do you ask?
RE: So far, all my WUs have
)
Good news.
I will make a link in the d/l thread after my test in some hours or days.
Let's crunch! :)
RE: RE: My question was
)
Why? That's very easy:
What effect have WU's with uncorect results? I thing that this effect is very low - I can say it's negative. In this case it may be better use original binary or some other from your binaries without this problem.
Is this problem only by C37 or the same code (which caused the differencies from standard binary) is used in all your binaries?
I have a one question again:
)
I have a one question again: What say for your optimalization (and its problem) peoples from projects as Bruce atc.?
RE: RE: RE: My question
)
Well, I did these unofficial codes because of fun, but I shared at the reques of some people.
I never said that you should use it, and I don't say that.
So, everybody got a chance to open Pandora's box. "Use at you own risk."
I don't want to guarantee anything, because I cannot do that.
RE: ... Well, I did these
)
Akosf,
Don't worry about any guarantee - leave all that worry to the project owners and their choice(s) for "official" apps, where it rightfully should lie.
If you can continue to have fun at this, please, maintain that beautiful frame of mind. We are very grateful for all that you have done.
Michael R.
microcraft
"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - MLK
RE: Thanks for these
)
I figured the cause of the failures was something like that, most likely in combination with a fairly tight tolerance band at the project validator end of things.
FWIW, it looked like C37 was somewhat faster than 387 on the K6-2, but that's hard to say conclusively with just a handful of results pushed through so far.
I just took a closer look at the K6-2's results, and it looks like one of the failures might be due to the project database work last week rather than a calculational precision problem from the app. In any event, I'm going to run a few more C37's through them to make for a better test.
Alinator
I have tried A36, C37 and
)
I have tried A36, C37 and S37a and with no problems with any of them.
Anders n
RE: Well, I did these
)
Akosf, you need not apologize, guarantee, nor make any amends for your work. What you have done is excellent, a grand stroke not only for Science but also for the people who just like crunching. If you were local to me, I'd buy you a large selection of the the beverage of your choice.
cheers,
-jim
RE: What you have done is
)
Me too! You are a very gifted individual, and we appreciate that you are sharing the fruits of those gifts with all of us! :)