On 2017-02-26 08:27, Isuru Fernando wrote:
Anybody know why some python extensions with C++ as the language are
compiled with -std=c99? I'm using sage-7.5.1
Fix at https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22554
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel"
On 2017-02-26 10:57, Ralf Stephan wrote:
The travis build failed. Usually git maintainers expect the PR submitter
to check and fix all such failures.
I know, but that's not the issue. They didn't say "yes we like your
patch but you need to fix it". They said "why not do Y or Z instead" and
I
The travis build failed. Usually git maintainers expect the PR submitter to
check and fix all such failures.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:38 AM Jeroen Demeyer
wrote:
> On 2017-02-26 08:39, Francois Bissey wrote:
> > That’s because python doesn’t do c++ compilation properly out of the box.
>
> That
On 2017-02-26 08:39, Francois Bissey wrote:
That’s because python doesn’t do c++ compilation properly out of the box.
That's true but that has nothing to do with Sage using -std=c99 for C++
extensions.
I know how to fix this but it needs
https://github.com/cython/cython/pull/466
which Cython
On Sunday, February 26, 2017 at 7:27:45 AM UTC, Isuru Fernando wrote:
>
> Anybody know why some python extensions with C++ as the language are
> compiled with -std=c99? I'm using sage-7.5.1
>
> Log is below
>
> https://travis-ci.org/isuruf/staged-recipes/builds/205439821#L6669
>
wow, I didn't k
Oh I see, so you will go with clang all the way because that’s the default.
I guess you know the score at https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12426
it compiles but doctests are failing left and right. But I haven’t had time
to touch the thing in 3 months.
Francois
> On 26/02/2017, at 20:49, Isuru Fe
Thanks. This is using conda's python, so will have to patch that as well.
Regards,
Isuru Fernando
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Francois Bissey <
francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> That’s because python doesn’t do c++ compilation properly out of the box.
> That’s https://bugs.python
That’s because python doesn’t do c++ compilation properly out of the box.
That’s https://bugs.python.org/issue1222585
look it up. I will probably patch sage’s python in the near future - when
I have time.
François
> On 26/02/2017, at 20:27, Isuru Fernando wrote:
>
> Anybody know why some python
Anybody know why some python extensions with C++ as the language are
compiled with -std=c99? I'm using sage-7.5.1
Log is below
https://travis-ci.org/isuruf/staged-recipes/builds/205439821#L6669
Regards,
Isuru Fernando
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Francois Bissey <
francois.bis...@canterbury
> On 4/10/2016, at 20:39, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> Ah that would be a wrong libffi-devel version on OpenSuSE, shouldn't
> this be tested by Sage configure?
>
That would explain. Note that I only tested the odd package on linux and
most of what I have done has been on OS X. So there definitely c
Ah that would be a wrong libffi-devel version on OpenSuSE, shouldn't
this be tested by Sage configure?
Now I get this:
[libgap-4.8.3]
/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/4.8/../../../../x86_64-suse-linu
x/bin/ld: .libs/libgap_la-ariths.o: relocation R_X86_64_32S against
`libGAP_ZERO
Op' can not be
I cannot find mention of ecl problems:
[ecl-16.1.2.p2]
/home/ralf/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl-16.1.2.p2/src/src/c/ffi.d:148:44:
error: use of undeclared identifier 'FFI_SYSV'
[ecl-16.1.2.p2] {((cl_object)(cl_symbols+(1604))), FFI_SYSV},
[ecl-16.1.2.p2]
You need https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/12473 for ratpoints.
coming in the next beta.
François
> On 4/10/2016, at 19:07, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 10:33:38 PM UTC+2, François wrote:
> this is the status after about two weeks
>
> ratpoints compiles for you? On Lin
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 4:04:20 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 11:48:22 AM UTC+1, François wrote:
>>
>> I haven’t tried SAGE_INSTALL_GCC=no on linux or using clang
>> for a full build on linux. Just one packages here and there.
>>
>> And yes you cann
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 11:48:22 AM UTC+1, François wrote:
>
> I haven’t tried SAGE_INSTALL_GCC=no on linux or using clang
> for a full build on linux. Just one packages here and there.
>
> And yes you cannot build gfortran without gcc a t this time.
>
this is a limitation of Sage's gcc
I haven’t tried SAGE_INSTALL_GCC=no on linux or using clang
for a full build on linux. Just one packages here and there.
And yes you cannot build gfortran without gcc a t this time.
François
> On 3/10/2016, at 22:48, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> And how about Linux with clang(++) and gfortran ins
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 8:56:27 AM UTC, François wrote:
>
> In the current state of sage starting from scratch with clang/clang++
> via
> CC=clang CXX=clang++ make
> will trigger the building of sage’s gcc (which is OK on OS X since
> you still need gfortran).
> The problem is that onc
In the current state of sage starting from scratch with clang/clang++
via
CC=clang CXX=clang++ make
will trigger the building of sage’s gcc (which is OK on OS X since
you still need gfortran).
The problem is that once you build sage’s gcc, there is a clause
in src/bin/sage-env to use sage’s gcc/g+
What exactly should be set to start the Sage build using clang rather than
gcc?
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 6:32:45 AM UTC, François wrote:
>
>
> > On 3/10/2016, at 09:33, François Bissey > wrote:
> >
> >> linbox
> >
> > No news from upstream at
> > https://github.com/linbox-team/linbox/
> On 3/10/2016, at 09:33, François Bissey
> wrote:
>
>> linbox
>
> No news from upstream at
> https://github.com/linbox-team/linbox/issues/39
> contributions welome.
Well as it turns out the problem is only in the interface with
fplll which we are going to disable in the next fplll upgrade.
W
Hi all,
this is the status after about two weeks
On 16/09/16 09:21, Francois Bissey wrote:
I couldn’t build sagelib, I didn’t manage to get there. Here are the
packages that fail to build with clang in sage 7.4.beta4 on OS X:
ratpoints
#12473 for this has positive review
lcalc
#12437 for
21 matches
Mail list logo
