On Friday, 9 October 2015 00:38:37 UTC+2, William wrote:
>
> >>> On cygwin32 the result was decent.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How many people *use* it?
> >
> > Not even me!
> > I guess it misses advertising, proper packaging, proper testing, proper
> > continuous integration, ...
>
> The last
>>> On cygwin32 the result was decent.
>>
>>
>>
>> How many people *use* it?
>
> Not even me!
> I guess it misses advertising, proper packaging, proper testing, proper
> continuous integration, ...
The last few times I spent months on Windows porting, the net result
of using Cygwin was -- in pract
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:27:05 AM UTC+2, William wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Jean-Pierre Flori > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 9:10:17 PM UTC+2, William wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Oct 8,
On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 9:10:17 PM UTC+2, William wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thursday, October 8, 2015,
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 9:10:17 PM UTC+2, William wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Before this thread drops off the r
On Thursday, 8 October 2015 20:32:20 UTC+2, David Joyner wrote:
>
> Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard
> would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage starting with windows Python,
> then adding windows GAP, windows SIngular, networkxx, and
> SymPy+friends, of which G
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote:
>>
>> Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard
>> would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage starting with windows Python,
>> then adding windows GAP, windows SIngul
On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM, William Stein > wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner > wrote:
> >>
> >> Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard
> >> would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage st
On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote:
> Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard
> would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage starting with windows Python,
> then adding windows GAP, windows SIngular, networkxx, and
> SymPy+friends, of which GAP+Singular communi
Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard
would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage starting with windows Python,
then adding windows GAP, windows SIngular, networkxx, and
SymPy+friends, of which GAP+Singular communicate with the Sage
terminal via pexpect? Call it WinSage 1.0
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:38:00 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
> Some random thoughts:
>
> - I am not so convinced the strategy of automatic long -> long long
> patching is actually feasible, I think in practice this is gonna be a big
> can of worms. Pushing upstream to fix their code is a mu
4GB of Ram should be enough for anyone. :-)
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 21:24:01 UTC+2, Peter Luschny wrote:
>
> 7. Oktober 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni:
>>
>> Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints
>> but the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed
7. Oktober 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni:
>
> Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but
> the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve
> performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much
> RAM but still benefit from
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:03:15 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>>
>> PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not
>> guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what
>
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 20:06:41 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
> I think in FLINT you also have the issue that you are using tagged
> pointers (last time I checked anyway).
>
Yeah, we merged some patches recently to fix some of the issues here. I
don't think we got them all yet.
Sometimes c
On 7 October 2015 at 20:13, Bill Hart wrote:
> I could be wrong, but this doesn't sound like it includes SageMath. :-)
>
Probably :)
I am not sure about the allocation limit, as the limit might only apply to
large contiguous allocations. Or there might be other memory addressing
tricks at play.
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
> Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but
> the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve
> performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much
> RAM bu
I think in FLINT you also have the issue that you are using tagged pointers
(last time I checked anyway).
On 7 October 2015 at 20:03, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>>
>> PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is n
Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but
the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve
performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much
RAM but still benefit from the 64 bit ints.
On 7 October 2015 at 19:54, Bill Hart
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
> PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not
> guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what
> exactly an mp_limb_t is).
>
I think I understand now. I was misled by the per
Actually, now I'm not even sure I understand what x32 is.
I looked it up and found this page and found considerable disagreement on
what it is:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7635013/difference-between-x86-x32-and-x64-architectures
I think I'll give it a miss for a while.
Bill.
On Wednesd
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:11:35 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-10-07 18:50, Bill Hart wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> >
> > On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote:
> > > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment,
PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not
guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what
exactly an mp_limb_t is).
On 7 October 2015 at 19:03, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:37:41 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>>
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:56:47 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
> I agree that's better if they will allow it. But I'm not sure some of the
>> things SageMath depends on are even still maintained, let alone do all
>> projects have the resources to keep maintaining such things, which is
>> eve
On 2015-10-07 18:50, Bill Hart wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote:
> Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I
understand
> why this is an "elephant in the room".
It's an elepha
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:37:41 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:35:36 PM UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>>
>>
* PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an
experimental branch fixing this:
http://pari.math.u-bordea
>
> I agree that's better if they will allow it. But I'm not sure some of the
> things SageMath depends on are even still maintained, let alone do all
> projects have the resources to keep maintaining such things, which is
> eventually what they get asked to do. Moreover, not all developers feel
>
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:58 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:23:21 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:15:14 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote:
> > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand
> > why this is an "elephant in the room".
>
> It's an elephant in the room because your original post complet
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:38:00 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
> Some random thoughts:
>
> - I am not so convinced the strategy of automatic long -> long long
> patching is actually feasible, I think in practice this is gonna be a big
> can of worms. Pushing upstream to fix their code is a mu
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:35:36 PM UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
>
>>> * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an
>>> experimental branch fixing this:
>>> http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-dev-1505/msg00021.html
>>>
>>
>> I am using Pari (not GP) today
>
>
>> * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an
>> experimental branch fixing this:
>> http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-dev-1505/msg00021.html
>>
>
> I am using Pari (not GP) today on Windows 64. It was minimal effort on my
> part to do so. I am not using a s
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:23:21 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:15:14 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than
>> porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough.
>>
>
> C
On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote:
Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand
why this is an "elephant in the room".
It's an elephant in the room because your original post completely seems
to ignore any possible problems with the POSIX layer, while the POSIX
la
Perhaps I should also say that our long term plans for the Julia project I
mentioned definitely include Gap and Singular, so we will be investing time
and expertise into solving any issues with these, I am sure.
It's a long term strategy for sure, but not one that is going to disappear
overnigh
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:18:02 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
> As far as I remember, apart from the lack of POSIX compatibility on
> Windows/MSYS, the main obstacle to "natively" compile Sage on Windows 64
> were:
>
Just to clarify, I'm not talking about MSYS. That's a different thi
On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:15:14 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than
> porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough.
>
Cygwin is personally of no use to me (native applications like Julia can't
work wit
As far as I remember, apart from the lack of POSIX compatibility on
Windows/MSYS, the main obstacle to "natively" compile Sage on Windows 64
were:
* PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an
experimental branch fixing this:
http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-d
Some random thoughts:
- I am not so convinced the strategy of automatic long -> long long
patching is actually feasible, I think in practice this is gonna be a big
can of worms. Pushing upstream to fix their code is a much better long-term
solution IMO (and I'd rather have nothing to do with proje
Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than
porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough.
I can the main "elephant in the room" is the POSIX layer. Many pieces of
Sage assume some kind of POSIX environment.
Jeroen.
--
You received this message bec
HI all,
William Stein recently bemoaned the fact that SageMath currently only runs
natively on some brands of Linux, and not natively on the latest Windows or
OSX (that is to say nothing of BSD). [1]
Until recently, a port of SageMath to Windows has seemed like a pipe dream.
However, things ha
41 matches
Mail list logo
