I agree that the issue here is not whether David has contributed a lot
or not. He's contributed, and that is what counts.
The issue here is the cost of a port. If it is borne by David and
people who volunteer to help him, then I have no problem with a port.
But if it takes the form:
1) Complaint
Martin Albrecht wrote:
On Monday 01 February 2010, Nick Alexander wrote:
I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not
purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes
all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an
unreasonable request.
I take is
It's somewhat more complicated unfortunately. There are numerous gnu
extensions which are used by people using gcc. I don't know if the HP-
UX compiler is c99 or not, but that may be a second issue, especially
for FLINT.
On top of the compiler issues, if you port to the HP-UX OS you then
have a wh
On Monday 01 February 2010, Nick Alexander wrote:
> > I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not
> > purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes
> > all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an
> > unreasonable request.
>
> I take issue wit
Hi,
as far as I know, projects like NTL or MPIR/GMP have options to tell
them to use a "plain C" variant of their functionality. No assembler
code whatsoever, not optimized --- but compiling under any, say, ANSI
C99 compliant C compiler. So I think HP-UX will always be "supported"
in this sense. M
As a user of sage, I'm quite happy with all of the work that has been
going in to the Solaris port lately. Currently I have to use it from
a zone running linux, which isn't so bad except the zones typically
run older distributions of Linux. I know it creates additional work
and I also thank all t
Actually, he was asking that I don't purposely break MPIR. We won't be
purposely breaking anything. Merely not supporting it ourselves. If
David wishes to support it, that is his prerogative.
As for FLINT, it has never built on HP-UX, ever. I'm not going to put
even 5 minutes into trying to get it
Sorry, I need to be more clear. We aren't going to purposely break
anything. And if you wish to maintain MPIR on HP-UX and PA-RISC, then
you are more than welcome.
The only reason it passes all the self tests at the moment is that we
removed a good proportion of the broken assembly language.
The
On 31-Jan-10, at 11:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2010-Jan-31 22:02:19 -0800, Nick Alexander
wrote:
Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a
*product*. Take away release management, fixing bugs, documentation,
or maintaining the web site and we have an inferior project, b
On 2010-Jan-31 22:02:19 -0800, Nick Alexander wrote:
>Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a
>*product*. Take away release management, fixing bugs, documentation,
>or maintaining the web site and we have an inferior project, but we
>still have a project. Take away supp
On 1 February 2010 05:51, Tim Lahey wrote:
> Solaris isn't exactly an "unusual" architecture. That's what he's done the
> most at
> supporting. He certainly has done "a LOT" at supporting it. I think what he's
> asking
> that Bill not purposely break FLINT since it does currently work.
If was
On 1 February 2010 06:02, Nick Alexander wrote:
>> I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to Sage
>> are
>> mathematicians. So, doing the release management, fixing bugs,
>> documentation, or
>> maintaining the web site aren't important?
>
> Not at all. But take away ma
By and large, we are a community of mathematicians. Correct me if
I'm wrong, but you are not contributing to the mathematical aspects
of Sage. Until that changes, your goals and my goals are only
occasionally aligned.
I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to
S
On 02-01-2010, at 12:45 AM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
> I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let me be
> clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to other
> architectures. But I question how many people are interested in actually
> using Sage on thos
I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not
purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes
all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an
unreasonable request.
I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let
me be clear:
On 31 January 2010 14:27, Bill Hart wrote:
> I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw
> its grave.
>
> Here is one of the many obituaries:
>
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460
The latest release of HP-UX was September 2009 - 4 months
On 31 January 2010 14:27, Bill Hart wrote:
> I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw
> its grave.
>
> Here is one of the many obituaries:
>
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460
>
> I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX por
Ah!
http://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/biz-enterprise/266916-red-hat-pulls-plug-on-itanium-with-rhel-6
That leaves debian, which still supports it officially, unofficial
support on Ubuntu and support for ia32 on SUSE.
But that leads me to question the future of ia64 itself. I don't
personally
OK, I did some reading and I now see the point of the question.
At this point I don't see any problem with Linux on Itanium 2. For
example the gcc build farm contains an Itanium 2 (though no longer an
Itanium), and gcc itself support Itanium 2, as does the assembler
(obviously).
Are there any art
I've posted a list of arches/compilers/OSes that MPIR currently does/
perhaps should support, in another thread. That should answer the
question, I think.
On Jan 31, 3:28 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Bill Hart
> wrote:
> > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw
> its grave.
>
> Here is one of the many obituaries:
>
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460
>
> I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP
I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw
its grave.
Here is one of the many obituaries:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460
I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. Well, not
only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but
22 matches
Mail list logo
