Hi, On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Markus Nullmeier wrote:
Sure, they are notoriously untractable. But was there really such a limit in the old code? I was under the impression that I once had it compute B_{30000} but I might be wrong...
Oh, sorry about this confusion. I overlooked some points while reading the 1.0.3 code. I rather should have said that the (long) value of (m*n) overflows 2^32-1 for B_{32768}. I'm guessing that this should impact the calculated values.
Ah, okay.
I do not think the difference in times will be worth the effort, but I haven't tried. Making it safe such that somebody who wants to see it break down would have to let it run for a week or so is more important.
Make-safe patch to follow ... :)
While you are at it, could you also make sure to call resize() on results with an appropiate argument before entering the loop in wich the push_back() is being done? This is, because push_back() is likely to trigger a couple of reallocations in there and this is quite expensive for any vectors, since they are contiguous in their memory layout. (The old code should have already done that.) Regards -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <Richard.Kreckel@Uni-Mainz.DE> <http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~kreckel/>