On Nov 9, 2007 4:49 AM, Joshua Kantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is something which has confused me in the past.
> The issue is that there are two shared object libraries with the exact
> same name. If we compile with -L$SAGE_LOCAL/lib
> are we guaranteed that this will be searched before /
On Nov 8, 2007 11:54 PM, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree. I actually started to implement this function, but never
> > submitted it because I saw someone else had beat met to it. One
> > should not have to provide the "degree" parameter--it should be
> > automatically deduce
This is something which has confused me in the past.
The issue is that there are two shared object libraries with the exact
same name. If we compile with -L$SAGE_LOCAL/lib
are we guaranteed that this will be searched before /usr/lib at
runtime.
Josh
On Nov 8, 6:22 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Nov 9, 3:14 am, Joshua Kantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Josh,
> Yeah. the missing symbol is because its linking against libblas in /
> usr/lib, which was compiled with some other probably older fortran
> (why oh why can't all the fortrans get along).
>
> I'm curious about what people
Yeah. the missing symbol is because its linking against libblas in /
usr/lib, which was compiled with some other probably older fortran
(why oh why can't all the fortrans get along).
I'm curious about what people think is a good solution here.
If they have a libblas in /usr/lib thats broken lik
> I agree. I actually started to implement this function, but never
> submitted it because I saw someone else had beat met to it. One
> should not have to provide the "degree" parameter--it should be
> automatically deduced (e.g. if E is over GF(p^n) with coefficents in
> GF(p^m), the computation
On Nov 8, 10:46 pm, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
Hi John,
>
> Check this out:
>
> sage: def stupid_function(n):
> : Z_F = NumberField(x^2-x-1, 't').maximal_order()
> : for i in range(n):
> : Z_F([5,1])
> :
> sage: prun stupid_function(10^4
Hello all,
Check this out:
sage: def stupid_function(n):
: Z_F = NumberField(x^2-x-1, 't').maximal_order()
: for i in range(n):
: Z_F([5,1])
:
sage: prun stupid_function(10^4)
Ordered by: internal time
ncalls tottime percall cumtime percall
filename:li
On Nov 8, 9:50 pm, Kate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/numerical/test.py
> **
> File "test.py", line 4:
> : from cvxopt.base import *
> Exception raised:
> Traceback (most rece
On Nov 8, 9:50 pm, Kate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael,
Kate,
>
> Much thanks for the link to Josh's update of cvxopt.spkg.
No problem.
>
> With that fix, I now can compile on all the architectures
> I am currently interested in: x86-Linux, x86_64-Linux, and ia64-Linux.
>
> The next st
Michael,
Much thanks for the link to Josh's update of cvxopt.spkg.
With that fix, I now can compile on all the architectures
I am currently interested in: x86-Linux, x86_64-Linux, and ia64-Linux.
The next step is to run 'make check', which I have done.
Sadly, only x86-Linux passes all the test
William,
I am confused about why you forwarded my build report to sage-devel.
According to the "About this group"
sage-support: This email list is to report possible bugs in SAGE or
to post a
support-related issue.
sage-devel: This email list is for discussion of SAGE development
issues.
I wa
On Nov 8, 2007 3:12 PM, Kate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am confused about why you forwarded my build report to sage-devel.
> According to the "About this group"
I forwarded your email because I know for a fact that several of the
people likely to fix the problems you reported only subscribe t
On Nov 8, 3:59 pm, Kate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael,
Hello Kate,
>
> I have tried
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/libfplll-2.1-20071024.p...
>
> and can report that it builds on my x86_64-Linux box.
Great. I will make sure the updated spkg goes into 2.9 or whatever
Michael,
I have tried
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/libfplll-2.1-20071024.p0.spkg
and can report that it builds on my x86_64-Linux box. The build is
now
stuck at the cvxopt-0.8.2.p4 spot (same error) that I reported for
x86-Linux and ia64-Linux.
Kate
On Nov 7, 6:16 pm, mab
On Thursday 08 November 2007 02:43, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> > Hashing string is definitely one of the easiest ways to get a lot of
> > semantics that we want ... i.e. agreement with '=='. In all other
> > respects, it seems like one of the most awful hash algorithms one could
> > imagine. Howev
16 matches
Mail list logo
