On May 31, 4:45 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> On 05/31/10 04:26 PM, MartinX wrote:
>
>
>
> >> You could try making a package using the latest (unstable) ATLAS snapshot.
> >> The
> >> ChangeLog shows many new processors added since the release in Sage.
>
> > Successful build using ATLAS 2.9.24
On 05/31/10 04:26 PM, MartinX wrote:
You could try making a package using the latest (unstable) ATLAS snapshot. The
ChangeLog shows many new processors added since the release in Sage.
Successful build using ATLAS 2.9.24 directly on LAPACK 3.2.1 tar file
today - no failures running checks and
>
> You could try making a package using the latest (unstable) ATLAS snapshot. The
> ChangeLog shows many new processors added since the release in Sage.
>
Successful build using ATLAS 2.9.24 directly on LAPACK 3.2.1 tar file
today - no failures running checks and timing stages which is
encouragin
On 05/31/10 10:45 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 05/31/10 01:58 AM, MartinX wrote:
PS I meant type i5-750 processor not 750i in the original post.
I've never used such a processor myself, but I'm not surprised there are
not tuning parameters as that processor is quite new. Fortunately, ATLAS
On 05/31/10 01:58 AM, MartinX wrote:
Luck was never my strong point. nothing like a problem to get one up
the learning curve though.
True
If I do fix it I'll post back here.
That would be good. Do you have a trac account? If so, can you create a ticket
for this. If not, either I can crea
On May 30, 10:20 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
>
> It looks to me like ATLAS does not know about your CPU, so is running it's
> tuning routine, then somehow manages to screw up when it creates the file with
> tuning parameters. I've no idea why that might be.
>
> Ideally what you would want to
