On Friday, February 8, 2013 10:29:16 AM UTC+1, David Joyner wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Florent Hivert > <florent...@lri.fr<javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:59:21PM -0500, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:46:24PM +0000, John Cremona wrote: > >> > On 6 February 2013 22:02, Minh Nguyen <mvngu...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> > > Hi Michael, > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:13 AM, mabshoff > >> > > <mabs...@googlemail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> > >> it has been a while, i.e.summer 2009 or so, and I no longer have > my trac > >> > >> account password nor do I recall the email address I used. > >> > > > >> > > Great to hear from you again! > >> > > >> > Seconded! > > > > +3.1415926535897932384626433... > > Welcome back Michael! > Hope all is well. > - David J > > > > > Florent > > > > -- >
Hello folks, I made this #14097 and threw the patch up there. The weekend I also ran all doctests through the ringer on an x86-64 Linux box and found quite a few problems, not surprising since I had a look at the liberal suppression file before I ran the tests. Unfortunately I doubt I will have any time to spare to fix those problems, but I might get to some of the more obvious and low hanging fruit. If anyone cares I can list some of the more serious problems, but anyway with access to the Sage build farm can get those reports with less than 80 hours of CPU time anyway. My shiny new eight core build box did it in less than eight hours wall time. If I were to do any work on Sage I would pick up where I left since in 2009 I actually did a port of Sage 4.0 to a mixed MSVC/MingW environment to the point where I could import libSingular and do GB computations. I was a 3.5 months never ending session of banging my head against my desk, but in the end I ended up with somewhere aroud 500 to 600 patches to many of the Sage components as well as the Sage library. pexpect was a special pain in the ass, but that was to be expected. Unfortunately the disk image I used no longer exists due to a hardware failure of the backup medium - guess who now uses additional online backups for the important stuff :(. The failure does not matter too much since most of those patches had to be cleaned up anyway and if you have to do the port the second time you just have to remember how you fixed the problem the first time ;). These days unfortunately there are components like libgap which make a port significantly more work and due to the way memory is managed in GAP, at least back in 2009, the only realistic option on Windows would be the 64 bit port. But since Pari assumes sizeof(void) == long and Windows 64 bit is a LLP platform you are out of luck there. The Pari maintainers rejected a patch to fix this violation of the *C Standard* in 2009, so unless they changed their minds you are simply up shit creek without a paddle. Just the general move from LP to LLP would be enough of a pain in the ass to cause significant problems anyway. And I might be a sucker for mission impossible, but I rather not enter that abyss again voluntarily. Anyway, see you around at some point. It has been fun to revisit the old code base I spend so much of 2008/2009 on. Cheers, Michael -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
