Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
The Cygwin folks have an issue that GCC-4.6.3 doesn't compile ECL
properly due to a GCC bug
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52061).
Since this problem doesn't seem to occur with GCC-4.7.2, I would propose
to upgrade Sage's GCC to version 4.7.2. There already ex
Dear Sage lovers,
I'm here at the Sage-GIT workshop and it's very clear that the switch to
GIT is happening.
The current idea is to have Sage 5.9 and Sage 5.10 with the current
Mercurial-based workflow. Hopefully before Sage 5.10, there will already
be a usable GIT-based release in parallel
On Mar 29, 8:10 pm, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> This could be related to http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13447
The "Exception KeyError: (The ring pointer -0x1f5282c,) in
'sage.libs.singular.ring.singular_ring_delete' ignored" messages
almost certainly are.
--
You received this message bec
On 03/29/2013 06:32 PM, kcrisman wrote:
Calling all Singular experts:
On Cygwin, we see a strange error which includes both an overflow issue
and a pointer exception. Here is a typical example. Anyone have any
idea what is causing it? This is *not* #14254, unfortunately.
This could be relat
Calling all Singular experts:
On Cygwin, we see a strange error which includes both an overflow issue and
a pointer exception. Here is a typical example. Anyone have any idea what
is causing it? This is *not* #14254, unfortunately.
sage -t devel/sage-main/sage/algebras/free_algebra.py
Exce
This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/14382 and I am
working on a patch...
On Mar 29, 9:01 am, John Cremona wrote:
> Thanks for the comments. I am using sagetex in earnest for the first
> time, and learning as I go.
>
> John
>
> On 29 March 2013 14:49, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
Thanks for the comments. I am using sagetex in earnest for the first
time, and learning as I go.
John
On 29 March 2013 14:49, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> On Mar 28, 10:08 am, John Cremona wrote:
>> This is horrible (and causes nasty things to happen in SageTex):
>
> This is because of
> http:/
On Mar 28, 10:08 am, John Cremona wrote:
> This is horrible (and causes nasty things to happen in SageTex):
This is because of
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9774#comment:116
which I never got to revert - the old version produced a valid LaTeX
code suitable for SageTeX for any string y
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:49:02 PM UTC+1, leif wrote:
>
> Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> > I've created #14381 to at least separate m4 from autotools stuff.
>
> Separating it certainly makes sense; I'd still keep it optional though.
>
> Of course you need some sufficiently working C compiler to
maybe another (untested) suggestion is, to start a sage instance in
background, separated from django and communicate over a network
protocol with each other.
this has the further advantage, that you can separate the web-server
from the sage installation for security of performance reasons.
bg,
Jo
On 3/29/13 8:02 AM, tom d wrote:
Ok, cool; as I'm looking around more, it's seeming like getting a good
grasp of how the cell server is working and using or adapting it
appropriately. Will keep on hacking.
If your server never executes user code, then it's probably fine to just
use Sage like
Ok, cool; as I'm looking around more, it's seeming like getting a good
grasp of how the cell server is working and using or adapting it
appropriately. Will keep on hacking.
On Friday, March 29, 2013 2:29:57 PM UTC+3, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> This is somewhat scary ;-) You can execute arbitrary m
Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
I've created #14381 to at least separate m4 from autotools stuff.
Separating it certainly makes sense; I'd still keep it optional though.
Of course you need some sufficiently working C compiler to bootstrap GCC
4.{6,7}, as GCC depends on GMP/MPIR, and the latter on M4
This is somewhat scary ;-) You can execute arbitrary machine code from
within Sage, so you need to have a plan for how to isolate it from the web
frontend. Importing it all into one process is a bad idea.
On Friday, March 29, 2013 7:23:10 AM UTC, tom d wrote:
>
> I'm trying to import the sage li
On 3/29/13 5:48 AM, tom d wrote:
I know there's something involving spawning a pile of kernels in the
cell server, which is something that could work nicely to get around the
time problem, but I'm not sure where to look to learn how to use those
kernels appropriately.
We import Sage before fork
Hm, the issue is that there's really big startup costs for Sage; it looks
based on my cursory understanding of subprocess that there's a couple
seconds of hang-time for each calculation one wants to execute. This
doesn't really scale. I know there's something involving spawning a pile
of kern
I've created #14381 to at least separate m4 from autotools stuff.
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 5:27:57 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 11:56:06 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> Since we just got another report of #11391, I would like to propose
>> ag
You could just use call from the Python subprocess module, which is
documented in the Python docs. It depends on exactly what functionality
you need from Sage.
David
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:58 AM, tom d wrote:
> Ok, the patch maybe works. Sage starts normally after patching, but I'm
> gett
Ok, the patch maybe works. Sage starts normally after patching, but I'm
getting a segfault from the django process when I try to load a webpage, so
not sure what that's about
Is there documentation or good examples somewhere on how to use Sage as a
subprocess?
On Friday, March 29, 2013 10
Cool, I'll give the patch a shot. It looks like some other projects have a
variable or option for disabling interrupts for exactly this reason; if a
patch works, it might make sense to do signals optionally in Sage.
I'm trying to import the sage libraries into some Django code. I'm playing
wi
On 03/28/2013 11:44 PM, tom d wrote:
The problem seems to be at:
from sage.ext.c_lib import _init_csage, sig_on_count
_init_csage()
which is explicitly using the signal library and doing signal handling
stuff for Sage. Any idea how deep this goes? Some of the online
suggestions are about using
21 matches
Mail list logo
