On 2012-05-01 00:08, Volker Braun wrote:
> (like, do binutils support SSE4?)
MPIR does this.
--
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:
On 2012-05-01, Tom Boothby wrote:
> At one point, Victor Miller, William Stein and I looked at interfacing
> directly to minisat, but IMO, we stopped due to a lack of a nice
> interface. I've tried to rewrite my SAT approach every time I solve a
> new problem with SAT solvers -- forcing me to ret
On 2012-05-01 17:38, William Stein wrote:
> Thanks for researching this! So I could buy a Trim-Slice H250 for
> about $350, get a name assigned to it (trim.math.washington.edu)? and
> put it in our server room. But it will take 10 hours to build sage.
10 hours isn't so bad. We already have 3 bui
Le mardi 01 mai, Dima Pasechnik a écrit:
> I suppose 10 hours is still acceptable for a build (I expect it
> actually be quicker with a HD,
> as the solid state drive in my AC100 is kind of slow, and might take
> a lot of wallclock time
> during the build).
More memory will also shorten the build
Hello, John! Thank you for your answer!
The problem is not me being unable to use sage (as reported in another mail
I have downloaded and build sage-5.0.beta14 and it does not have this
problem).
I was thinking that sage 4.8, when installed and used in the way I
presented it (which looks pretty s
On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:38:26 PM UTC, William wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> >>> On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-04-2
Hello
Sage 4.8 came with an earlier Cbc package, 2.3-somethingorother. It
included something called OsiVol. Your version of sage is trying to
build with that library. The more recent Cbc package, 2.7.5, does not.
It looks as if sage downloaded the newer Cbc package. An unpatched
sage 4.8 does not
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 at 09:36AM -0700, Harald Schilly wrote:
> Hi, sounds good. I'm not too familiar with the PPAs, but this procedure
> also include some signatures for the deb packages, or is it necessary to
> get them separately? Also, if this is tested well enough I want to mention
> this on
On 05/ 1/12 10:33 PM, Benjamin Jones wrote:
Here [1] is a patch I just wrote to increase the doctest coverage of
one file mentioned here (linear_code.py) to 100%. Please review! I'm
going to work on the other files in that directory as I have time.
[1] http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/
At one point, Victor Miller, William Stein and I looked at interfacing
directly to minisat, but IMO, we stopped due to a lack of a nice
interface. I've tried to rewrite my SAT approach every time I solve a
new problem with SAT solvers -- forcing me to rethink it every time.
In general, I've gotte
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 09:32:19PM +0100, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> Otherwise, as I stated earlier, the doctest coverage will
>> asymptotically approach 100%, even if no further doctests are added
>> to older code. (This assumes all new f
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 09:32:19PM +0100, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Otherwise, as I stated earlier, the doctest coverage will
> asymptotically approach 100%, even if no further doctests are added
> to older code. (This assumes all new functions have at least one
> test - which I believe is happeni
>>
>> Is there an easy way to find a list of undocumented functions?
>
> sage -coverage
>
> For example,
>
> cd SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/coding
> sage -coverage .
>
> Outputs:
>
> ag_code.py: 100% (1 of 1)
> binary_code.pyx: 91% (41 of 45)
> code_bounds.py: 100% (17 of 17)
> code_constructions.py:
On 05/ 1/12 08:51 PM, Sébastien Labbé wrote:
But, the number of undoctested functions decreased only by 92.
Well, I guess that's better than nothing, but given there are still around 4000
which are not tested, it hardly makes a dent in the problem.
Also, I believe we should stop looking at
> But, the number of undoctested functions decreased only by 92.
Also, I believe we should stop looking at the coverage percentage
between releases put rather at the number of undoctested functions.
SL
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from th
> Both of these have been tried, and niether are working. The graph here
>
> http://thales.math.uqam.ca/~labbes/blogue/2011/03/evolution-of-the-ov...
>
> seems to indicate that progress on this has slowed over the last year
> or so, where progress was about 4.7% per year. (I'm not actually sure
> I
Hello!
I'm reporting here the compilation results on:
> Ubuntu 11.10 - 64-bit
> Architecture: x86_64
> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 2
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0,1
> Thread(s) per core: 1
> Core(s) per socket: 2
> CPU socket(s): 1
> NUMA node(s): 1
> Vendor ID
>
> I upgraded a mac with XCode 3.? to 5.0.beta11. Running with a plain
> new MoinMoin wiki works perfectly.
>
Okay, I traced down that I have to clean the cache of moinmoin (was that
obvious?). Does someone know how to do that from the command line using
sage?
sage -wiki "wiki options"
didn
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote:
> Will some day ARM be one of the platforms of
On Monday, April 30, 2012, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> If you said "We want to assure that each command (or each software "unit")
> has at least 1 test" and
> asked for enforcement proposals, maybe this makes a little bit of sense.
> "100% coverage" is not what I'd call it.
What would you call it?
>
>
Hello!
I have reported the "issue" in #sagemath and I was instructed to send a
mail here, too. I will insert the chat log below, as it contains the steps
I took and the responses I've got.
The question is: do I need to report this as an issue? My experience with
sage is very limited and it may be
Dan Drake writes:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 at 08:27AM -0700, kcrisman wrote:
>> FYI - see Dan Drake's recent letter to the editor in the MAA FOCUS
>> magazine. Page 2.
>>
>> http://digital.ipcprintservices.com/publication/?i=107069
>>
>> This is not directly related to Sage development, but the op
David Kirkby writes:
> I don't know, but I have in the past suggested William read a book on
> software engineering, and even suggested he buy a copy each for the
> main developers. I have personally bought a couple of books on the
> subject.
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Software-Engineering-Intern
On 2012-05-01, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 01 May 2012, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> Has there been any discussion and/or consensus on how to encode boolean
>> formulae in Sage?
>
> So far the only interfaces to SAT Solvers were fire & forget interfaces for
> Boolean polynomials. Ther
Hi,
On Tuesday 01 May 2012, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Has there been any discussion and/or consensus on how to encode boolean
> formulae in Sage?
So far the only interfaces to SAT Solvers were fire & forget interfaces for
Boolean polynomials. There also the logic module but I never used it.
> I,
Has there been any discussion and/or consensus on how to encode boolean
formulae in Sage?
I, incidentally, need to solve some MAXSAT problems from Sage-generated
data, and am musing about writing a proper interface to akmaxsat, see
http://www.uni-ulm.de/fileadmin/website_uni_ulm/iui.inst.190/Mitar
26 matches
Mail list logo
