On May 31, 4:45 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 05/31/10 04:26 PM, MartinX wrote: > > > > >> You could try making a package using the latest (unstable) ATLAS snapshot. > >> The > >> ChangeLog shows many new processors added since the release in Sage. > > > Successful build using ATLAS 2.9.24 directly on LAPACK 3.2.1 tar file > > today - no failures running checks and timing stages which is > > encouraging. > > Yes > > > Took a long time though. > > Did it give messages about tuning? It can take about 5~10x as long to build if > it has to go through the tuning process
yes. 3hours from start to finish with 3.9.24 - the latest developer release. > > > While waiting have been trying > > make sense of the Sage fixes. > > See my post, and this trac ticket > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9103 > > > I am considering a build using version of LAPACK used in Sage with > > ATLAS 3.8.3, but without the Sage fixes. > > If it works, then clearly one of the Sage "fixes" is not too good. That would > not totally surprise me. I get the same problem with a clean version ATLAS3.8.3, so it is not the Sage "fixes". During CacheEdge tuning a code error (else statement with no associated if) aborts gcc. Martin -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
