On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:21:40 -0500, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Did you compile GMP with Pieck Gaudries "patch" for AMD 64 systems?
>
> If not, this will probably explain the timing difference.
The system-wide "sage" on sage.math now has the patched version of GMP.
It is also availa
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:21:40 -0500, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you compile GMP with Pieck Gaudries "patch" for AMD 64 systems?
>
> If not, this will probably explain the timing difference.
No, I didn't apply this patch yet. I'm on it.
William
--~--~-~--~~---
Did you compile GMP with Pieck Gaudries "patch" for AMD 64 systems?
If not, this will probably explain the timing difference.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMA
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:28:37 -0500, Greg Ewing
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> I don't think it matters, since the nb_index field is at the
>> very end of the struct that defines the class, so probably it would
>> still work in the older versions.
>
> A binary compiled fo
Hi,
The Singular guy Hans Schonemann came up to me at the workshop and
introduced himself.
He then said, "person XXX (name forgotten) can't install Singular on his
OS X laptop.
However, he was able to install the Singular the comes as a component of
SAGE.
What change did you make so the bui
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:20:03 -0500, Joshua Kantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This idea is probably totally naive as my understanding of the
> exact mechanics of shared object libraries is still somewhat black
> boxish.
>
> Say I have a routine that takes a pointer to some C function. I define
How to make a live cd...
--- Forwarded message ---
From: "Alfredo Portes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Subject: Re: your sage.math site
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:46:57 -0500
Following these steps is enough:
http://modular.math.washington.edu/home/alfre
Here's a GPL'd implementation:
http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~maya/rsk/rsk.c
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, William Stein wrote:
>
> No, I'm not, but I'll forward your question to the sage developer list...
>
> --- Forwarded message ---
> From: "William McGovern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "William
No, I'm not, but I'll forward your question to the sage developer list...
--- Forwarded message ---
From: "William McGovern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Subject: RSK correspondence
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:24:31 -0500
Hi, William,
I have been discuss
This idea is probably totally naive as my understanding of the
exact mechanics of shared object libraries is still somewhat black
boxish.
Say I have a routine that takes a pointer to some C function. I define
a
shared object library of C function wrappers. Say it just has a C
function foo. Then s
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:31:03 -0500, David Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>> Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
>>
>> But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use
>> MAGMA
>> to multiply 2
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:37:09 -0500, David Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>> Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
>>
>> But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use
>> MAGMA
>> to multiply 2
Josh,
I'm at a workshop with lots of software, and am working a little with a
grad student
to possible make a SAGE interface to something called PHCpack, which is a
numerical
solver for systems of polynomial equations. Anyway, in the PHCpack manual
it says:
"The computational bottleneck i
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:25:54 -0500, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David, did your comparative GMP/Magma timings take into account this
> MAGMA binary issue, which I presume William told you about? I.e. which
> binary of MAGMA did you measure against?
We didn't have MAGMA-2.13 back the
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
>
> But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use
> MAGMA
> to multiply 2400 degree polynomials considerably faster than they
> do it
> themselves.
I think pa
On Oct 24, 2006, at 7:25 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> David, did your comparative GMP/Magma timings take into account this
> MAGMA binary issue, which I presume William told you about? I.e. which
> binary of MAGMA did you measure against?
I'm not sure. I think it must have been the V12, 64-bit one.
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Now MAGMA uses SS/FFT down to degree 16 at least, for 1000 bit.
>
> But now they really screwed up their algorithm, because I can use
> MAGMA
> to multiply 2400 degree polynomials considerably faster than they
> do it
> themselves.
!!! :-)
D
David, did your comparative GMP/Magma timings take into account this
MAGMA binary issue, which I presume William told you about? I.e. which
binary of MAGMA did you measure against?
It interests me that MAGMA appears 2 times faster for some bit lengths.
It doesn't seem possible if they are actuall
18 matches
Mail list logo
