Hi, Since GMP3 has been released we are now in the process to adapt CLN to make use of that new library. While GMP3 seems to be much faster than GMP2 (largely because of the support of common new processors like PPro and also due to some improved algorithms with better asymptotic behaviour) and CLN does see a large chunk of this improvement I have the impression that most common symbolic computations don't actually benefit too much from this. Just because I was curious, I have made a preliminary statically linked GiNaC suite of timings, once with the old CLN using GMP2 and once with a CLN using the new GMP3. The results are interesting in a sense that they don't show much improvement. I have marked the tests which make heavy use of the class GiNaC::numeric (and thus are expected to run faster now) with an asterisk, the others with a dash: timing commutative expansion and substitution.... passed - size: 25 50 100 200 w/GMP2: time/s: 0.03 0.16 0.67 2.99 w/GMP3: time/s: 0.04 0.15 0.66 3.01 timing Laurent series expansion of Gamma function.... passed - order: 10 15 20 25 w/GMP2: time/s: 0.130 0.709 3.26 12.65 w/GMP3: time/s: 0.119 0.719 3.209 12.48 timing determinant of univariate symbolic Vandermonde matrices.... passed - dim: 4x4 6x6 8x8 10x10 w/GMP2: time/s: 0.002 0.02 0.299 2.91 w/GMP3: time/s: 0.003 0.02 0.299 2.88 timing determinant of polyvariate symbolic Toeplitz matrices.... passed - dim: 5x5 6x6 7x7 8x8 w/GMP2: time/s: 0.035 0.190 0.959 4.15 w/GMP3: time/s: 0.036 0.179 0.930 4.08 w/GMP2: w/GMP3: timing Lewis-Wester test A (divide factorials). 0.35 0.35 * timing Lewis-Wester test B (sum of rational numbers). 0.027 0.027 * timing Lewis-Wester test C (gcd of big integers). 0.45 0.45 * timing Lewis-Wester test D (sum of rational fcns). 0.00085 0.00086 - timing Lewis-Wester test E (sum of rational fcns). 0.00082 0.00081 - timing Lewis-Wester test F (gcd of 2-var polys). 0.095 0.095 ? timing Lewis-Wester test G (gcd of 3-var polys). 3.35 3.21 ? timing Lewis-Wester test H (det of 80x80 Hilbert). 10.88 10.30 * timing Lewis-Wester test I (invert rank 40 Hilbert). 4.10 3.97 * timing Lewis-Wester test J (check rank 40 Hilbert). 1.90 1.86 * timing Lewis-Wester test K (invert rank 70 Hilbert). 26.34 25.29 * timing Lewis-Wester test L (check rank 70 Hilbert). 10.96 10.70 * timing Lewis-Wester test M1 (26x26 sparse, det). 0.46 0.46 - timing Lewis-Wester test O1 (three 15x15 dets, average)... 49.51 49.31 - timing Lewis-Wester test P (det of sparse rank 101). 5.49 5.49 * timing Lewis-Wester test P' (det of less sparse rank 101). 10.02 9.69 * timing Lewis-Wester test Q (charpoly(P)). 145.71 144.10 * timing Lewis-Wester test Q' (charpoly(P')). 293.92 289.26 * It's embarassing that the four first tests show a common pattern: the new library runs slightly faster with large problem sizes and slower with small once. It's perfectly reproducible. Can anybody suggest a possible explanation for this? Cheers -richy. -- Richard Kreckel <Richard.Kreckel@Uni-Mainz.DE> <http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~kreckel/>