New thresholds in table

[Niels Möller]

Torbjorn Granlund <tg at gmplib.org> writes:

> I suppose 10 is still too high then.  Or doesn't the code support lower
> values?

I think it should work with a threshold as low as 4 or so.

> The spreading of measured values for k10/k8 makes me suspect that
> something might not be right.
>
> All k10 and  k8 machines using 64-bit limbs get values less then 30,
> but one is far off that:
> gcc12.fsffrance.org          171
>
> These machines have two nehalem generation CPUs:
> biko-solaris64.gmplib.org   169
> gcc20.fsffrance.org          12

Hmm. I think the threshold should be in the same ballpark as
HGCD_THRESHOLD. Which makes small values for all x86_64, 64-bit ABI
builds suspicious. The smallest value for builds in that class is 78,
for tom.gmplib.org

One would need to look at sime time/size graphs for those machines to
figure out what's right.

>From comments, it seems the reason min_size was set in tuneup for the
HGCD_THRESHOLD was some problem with bogus small results.

> Most of the GMP testing is nowadays done on emulators or under
> virtualisers; running tuneup there makes limited sense.

Then it would be good to somehow mark those which do make some sense, on
the threshold report pages...

Regards,
/Niels


-- 
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.