mabshoff wrote:
>
> ./sage -upgrade
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/release-cycles-3.3/sage-3.3.alpha0/
>
I upgraded from sage 3.2.3 using the above command and it looks like the
new spkgs did not get installed. Here is the part of the log that I
think is relevant:
I'm no
Built from scratch on 32-bit Suse (gcc 4.1.2) and 64-bit Suse. All
tests passed on 64bit, but I had the same error as Jaap with
toy_d_basis.py on 32-bit.
John
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe f
Builds fine OSX.4 PPC, tests seem fine up through sage/sage/misc (as
far as it's gotten by now), except for my eternal problem with
calculus.py timing out.
- kcrisman
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscr
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 19, 10:11 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
>> Jaap Spies wrote:
>>> mabshoff wrote:
Well, I am not sure if I am happier about Heisenbugs than
segfaults :). To be on the save side can you run them in a loop via
the shell and see if you get them to crash again? I.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 06:33 , mabshoff wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> here goes 3.3.alpha0. It was a lot longer than I thought, but the ReST
>> patches seemed to have slowed down things combined with the start of
>> the new year. Either
On Jan 19, 2009, at 06:33 , mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> here goes 3.3.alpha0. It was a lot longer than I thought, but the ReST
> patches seemed to have slowed down things combined with the start of
> the new year. Either way, it seems that we are back to brisk
> development speed. The a
Thanks for the hard work on this Michael.
On ubuntu amd64 8.10, the usual: build went fine, the sage -testall had
lots of (lisp related?) timeouts but apparently no other problems.
I'm looking forward to seeing the new documentation!
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:33 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hello
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 19, 10:11 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
>> Jaap Spies wrote:
>>> mabshoff wrote:
Well, I am not sure if I am happier about Heisenbugs than
segfaults :). To be on the save side can you run them in a loop via
the shell and see if you get them to crash again? I.
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
[...]
>
> Please build test as usual and let us know about doctest failures. I
> am leaving for SD 12 in about 10 hours, so there won't be another
> alpha until probably the first day of SD 12.
>
On Fedora 10, 32 bits only one failure in a fresh build:
sage -t "d
On Jan 19, 10:11 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Jaap Spies wrote:
> > mabshoff wrote:
> >> Well, I am not sure if I am happier about Heisenbugs than
> >> segfaults :). To be on the save side can you run them in a loop via
> >> the shell and see if you get them to crash again? I.e. having info
> >> tha
Jaap Spies wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
>> Well, I am not sure if I am happier about Heisenbugs than
>> segfaults :). To be on the save side can you run them in a loop via
>> the shell and see if you get them to crash again? I.e. having info
>> that they crash 1 or 2 out of 100 runs would be somethin
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 19, 8:16 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
>> mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Jaap,
>
>>> Judging by the time it took you to report this I would guess you did
>>> an upgrade. If so can you
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> repeating the tests made them pass!
>
> Did you upgrade or not? That
On Jan 19, 8:16 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
Hi Jaap,
> > Judging by the time it took you to report this I would guess you did
> > an upgrade. If so can you
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> repeating the tests made them pass!
Did you upgrade or not? That is quite relevant here due to the gmp
mabshoff wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 19, 8:05 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Mostly of the type:
>> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/matrix/misc.pyx"
>> A mysterious error (perphaps a memory error?) occurred, which may have
>> crashed doctest.
>> [1.0 s]
>
> Judging by the time it took you to re
On Jan 19, 8:05 am, Jaap Spies wrote:
> mabshoff wrote:
> > Hello folks,
>
> On Fedora 9, 32 bits:
Hi Jaap,
> --
> The following tests failed:
>
> sage -t "devel/sage/sage/matrix/misc.pyx"
> sage -t "devel/s
OK, those are now #5026 and #5027.
-Marshall
On Jan 19, 9:59 am, mabshoff wrote:
> On Jan 19, 7:56 am, mhampton wrote:
>
> Hi Marshall,
>
> > I had two numerical noise failures on an intel macbook, 10.5.6:
>
> Only one is numerical noise, the other one is due to xgcd changes
> AFAIK.
>
> > ***
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
On Fedora 9, 32 bits:
--
The following tests failed:
sage -t "devel/sage/sage/matrix/misc.pyx"
sage -t "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/term_order.py"
sage -t "deve
On Jan 19, 7:56 am, mhampton wrote:
Hi Marshall,
> I had two numerical noise failures on an intel macbook, 10.5.6:
Only one is numerical noise, the other one is due to xgcd changes
AFAIK.
> **
> File ".../devel/sage/sage/ri
I had two numerical noise failures on an intel macbook, 10.5.6:
**
File ".../devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/complex_roots.py", line
270:
sage: complex_roots(x^2 + 27*x + 181)
Expected:
[(-14.61803398874990?..., 1), (-12
19 matches
Mail list logo
