Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Sieve of Erastosthenes optimized to the max
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 12:08:11 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <86v7zn3xwk.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <ul41d4$2koct$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <v39o3l$1lvju$1@dont-email.me> <86o78mpnlf.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v3fv2u$2ursd$1@dont-email.me> <86ttibod7n.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86h6eaoi2r.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v4sool$1grge$1@dont-email.me> <867celixcw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v5sg9s$mat4$1@dont-email.me> <86zfr0b9hw.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v638ud$25623$1@dont-email.me> <861q3o5do1.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v7tdts$29195$1@dont-email.me> <868qx45v5g.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v9lbns$11alj$1@dont-email.me> <86r0aojx1m.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v9o2kf$1gqv1$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <va09jq$30cvv$1@dont-email.me> <va2ca2$3e60e$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <va2cfr$3e9l1$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <va2hq5$3f1gl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 21:08:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6baed66fa18aad174400126e3461865"; logging-data="2720457"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Icjjs1PEloei9m27ZcFzDkXdq0vG2jdw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dn+yt2zGrsnoX4bF3A0byesO8EU= sha1:dmjCujwbAam03UexAIDsTtUL47o=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:119915

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 20/08/2024 16:24, Bonita Montero wrote:
>
>> Am 20.08.2024 um 17:21 schrieb Bonita Montero:
>>
>>> Am 19.08.2024 um 22:23 schrieb Vir Campestris:
>>>
>>>> On 16/08/2024 18:35, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> But basically I don't think it is a good idea to skip numbers
>>>>> exept multiples of two.  [...] I think this extra computation
>>>>> is higher than the time for the saved memory loads.

[...]

> I'm leaning towards thinking you may have a point on the mod30
> code.  There are more operations on the innermost loop with mod30,
> although the loop goes around fewer times.  It also means that the
> store is forced to be byte wide - I find that my original odd-only
> code is significantly faster - about 30% - when the store is 64
> bit wide rather than byte.  [...]

One motivation for choosing a mod30 representation is being able to
compute more primes -- almost twice as many.  Any machine with 64GB
of memory should be able to compute primes up to 1.5 trillion.
Even if an odds-only representation runs faster for more limited
sizes (and I'm not yet convinced that it does), it doesn't matter
if it's faster, because it doesn't do the job.  I was computing all
32-bit primes 20 years ago, back when 32-bit machines were a thing.
The challenge for today's world is correspondingly higher.