[Ecm-dev] Proposal from George. Literally.
gwoltman at earthlink.net
Dim 8 Mai 20:26:52 CEST 2005
At 12:31 PM 5/7/2005, Alexander Kruppa wrote:
>Should we do the normalization of Z to 1 in GMP as well?
That is slightly easier for me, but I can go either way. Argument-wise,
I'd have to
return Z, but wouldn't need the number being factored.
>We could provide a stop_check() function you can call, or maybe better a
>function pointer we could pass to your code, NULL for no stop checking.
Agreed, pointer to procedure is the best interface.
> Btw, didn't you have a function to register a stop check function?
It used to just call prime95's directly. However, in cleaning up the FFT
eliminated all dependencies on prime95 code.
>About licensing: if we include your code in the GMP-ECM distribution,
>we'll have to publish it under the GPL. The alternative is to have your
>code as a separate library that gets linked in if the user said so at
>./configure time. This however would mean that the resulting binary could
>not be distributed to others.
From a maintenance point-of-view it would be best if I maintained the
source and library
separately. That way you don't need to upgrade your FTP site whenever I make
From a compiling point-of-view, it will be interesting to see if you can
link in a library
built with MSVC. If not, I'll have to build a gcc-created library. I do
this for Linux, so
I know it can be done.
From a licensing point-of-view, the FFT code's only restriction is you
can't use it to find
Mersenne primes without agreeing to the prize distribution rules. If the
FFT license says
you can freely distribute binaries built with the FFT library, can you then
a GMP-ECM binary that included the FFT library? Is there any other way we can
structure this to make licensing problems go away?
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 5/6/2005
Plus d'informations sur la liste de diffusion Ecm-discuss