Can we have a bit more of that log? I would like to see the full
command.
François
> On 30/07/2017, at 12:04, Michael Frey wrote:
>
> I tried AS_INTEGRATED_ASSEMBLER=1 make without success, I also tried adding
> it to my environment and also from the debugging shell.
>
> I also tried: export
I tried AS_INTEGRATED_ASSEMBLER=1 make without success, I also tried adding
it to my environment and also from the debugging shell.
I also tried: export CFLAGS="-Wa,-q $CFLAGS" without success.
The make ends with:
vscanf.o scanf/.libs/vsscanf.o -L/Users/michael/sage-8.0/local/lib -m64
-O2 -
Continuing the discussion from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23153,
there are a couple of directions to discuss:
- Do we want to remove the LogFFE and replace it with an implementation
that rewrites the element as a polynomial over the primitive root?
- Do we want to add support for
I made https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23549
--
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
Can you try building sage with
AS_INTEGRATED_ASSEMBLER=1 make
On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 4:53:40 PM UTC+2, Michael Frey wrote:
>
> I found this thread on the MPIR issues list:
> https://github.com/wbhart/mpir/issues/217
>
> It appears that the MacOS assembler is old. Is there to configure
I found this thread on the MPIR issues list:
https://github.com/wbhart/mpir/issues/217
It appears that the MacOS assembler is old. Is there to configure the
sage build as they suggest?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsub
On 2017-07-27, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> I am assuming by "this process" is the Sage peer review. It also does
> usually improve the quality of the code and the documentation.
+1
> That is precisely what could be a problem. Doing things one-by-one means
> you may not see how one dependency aff
On 2017-07-25, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The code quality is up to the project developers and not the consequence
> of the peer review process that we have in Sage.
Of course, if the project developers decide on using peer review and unit/doc
testing, then they'll get
Hi Marc,
On 2017-07-27, Marc Masdeu wrote:
> @Simon maybe it would help the OP if you elaborated on why the group
> cohomology code was not included in the standard Sage...
1. It depends on an optional package with GPL-compatible licence
at build time and on an optional package with GPL-inco
