On 2012-05-01 00:08, Volker Braun wrote:
> (like, do binutils support SSE4?)
MPIR does this.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http:
Autoconf-style tests would be nice but I think it'll be painful to write
tests for obscure asm issues (like, do binutils support SSE4?). Or
compliler releases that die in an ICE after compiling pari for a while.
Maybe we should have a combination of both, first autoconf tests and then
supplemen
On 30 April 2012 16:23, Volker Braun wrote:
> Essentially by maintaining a list of gcc versions / architectures that work
> well enough with reduced optimizations, and that are hopelessly broken. This
> can just be some shell script that shitlists specific compilers...
A problem with that approac
On 2012-04-30 22:39, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> But perhaps an option to use a more
> generic set of instructions would be nice.
To me, it just shows we really need to implement good default CFLAGS
instead of stupidly using -march=native as in the ECM spkg.
> It would mean its possible to
> distrib
On 04/30/12 03:45 AM, leif wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:23 pm, Volker Braun wrote:
Its pretty clear that this version does not support SSE4.
... and, frankly speaking, one shouldn't be surprised that Sage
doesn't support ancient Linux distros, at least not out-of-the-box.
There are a couple of ways t
Essentially by maintaining a list of gcc versions / architectures that work
well enough with reduced optimizations, and that are hopelessly broken.
This can just be some shell script that shitlists specific compilers...
On Monday, April 30, 2012 10:41:11 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On
On 2012-04-30 16:36, Volker Braun wrote:
> Given that compiler optimizations are likely to use new additions to the
> ISA, I propose that our strategy for deciding whether or not to build
> gcc should be:
>
> 1) use OS provided gcc if it works fine (of course)
>
> 2) build our own gcc on OSX (ver
Given that compiler optimizations are likely to use new additions to the
ISA, I propose that our strategy for deciding whether or not to build gcc
should be:
1) use OS provided gcc if it works fine (of course)
2) build our own gcc on OSX (very popular and hopelessly broken, but at
least we kno
Hi,
gcc was installed by Sage. You can find the install log here -
http://www.imsc.res.in/~rajeev/install.log
Rajeev
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> Did your compilation build the bundled gcc or did it use the system gcc? For
> example, is there a $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/gcc in
On Apr 29, 9:23 pm, Volker Braun wrote:
> Its pretty clear that this version does not support SSE4.
... and, frankly speaking, one shouldn't be surprised that Sage
doesn't support ancient Linux distros, at least not out-of-the-box.
There are a couple of ways to fix / work around this, e.g.:
-
Did your compilation build the bundled gcc or did it use the system gcc?
For example, is there a $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/gcc in your incomplete compile? If
you can, post the whole log e.g. to pastebin.
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 2:07:53 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's the assembler's info
Its pretty clear that this version does not support SSE4.
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 2:07:53 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's the assembler's info -
>
> $ as --version
> GNU assembler 2.16.91.0.5 20051219 (SUSE Linux)
> Copyright 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This program
Hi,
Here's the assembler's info -
$ as --version
GNU assembler 2.16.91.0.5 20051219 (SUSE Linux)
Copyright 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms of
the GNU General Public License. This program has absolutely no warranty.
This a
Seems like you have outdated binutils, the assembler doesn't understand the
gcc output. What is the output of "as --version"?
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:58:48 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I get the same error. I used the following commands -
>
> $ pwd
> /home/rajeev/bin/sage-5.0.bet
Hi,
I get the same error. I used the following commands -
$ pwd
/home/rajeev/bin/sage-5.0.beta14
$ ./sage -f
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/leif/Sage/spkgs/ecm-6.3.p7.spkg
Rajeev
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> Can you try this version:
>
> http://trac.sagemath
Can you try this version:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12830
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:41:06 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I got the following error while compiling sage-5.0.beta14. I had got
> the same error with sage-5.0.beta13 which I reported earlier.
>
>
> libtool: c
16 matches
Mail list logo
