Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > For the record, I didn't get any segfaults when running > > for i in `seq 0 1000` ; do sage -c 'print > ModularSymbols(389,sign=0).cuspidal_submodule().decomposition()[0]' ; done > > on sage-5.1.beta2 and Fedora 17. It could be an OS X thing.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

On Friday, June 8, 2012 11:54:58 AM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote: > > For the record, I didn't get any segfaults when running > > for i in `seq 0 1000` ; do sage -c 'print > ModularSymbols(389,sign=0).cuspidal_submodule().decomposition()[0]' ; done > > on sage-5.1.beta2 and Fedora 17. > > I just ran

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

For the record, I didn't get any segfaults when running for i in `seq 0 1000` ; do sage -c 'print ModularSymbols(389,sign=0).cuspidal_submodule().decomposition()[0]' ; done on sage-5.1.beta2 and Fedora 17. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Nils Bruin wrote: > On Jun 7, 4:19 pm, William Stein wrote: >> Hi Sage-Devel, >> >> I'm randomly running into segfaults when multiplying matrices over the >> integers, in the course of doing basic modular symbols calculations. >> For example, sometimes (but not alw

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le dimanche 27 mai, Dima Pasechnik a écrit: > Great! So this has to get into our ECL spkg... Yes, but first it should get proper testing, see : http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12586 Snark -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this g

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le samedi 26 mai, Dima Pasechnik a écrit: > On 2012-05-26, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Le dimanche 20 mai, Julien Puydt a écrit: > >> sage -t --long -force_lib > >> devel/sage/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py > >> ** > >> File > >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:45 AM, mmarco wrote: > > >>  Let's make ARM an officially supported platform for >> Sage! >> > > > Does that include android? For now, I think it means Ubuntu on ARM, which includes Android in the sense of using a chroot install of Ubuntu. I don't know if building Sage

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Dima Pasechnik > Sure, I (perhaps with Keshav as a backup --- Keshav, would you mind > helping?) can do the admin. > I suppose 10 hours is still acceptable  for a build (I expect it actually be > quicker with a HD, > as the solid state drive in my AC100 is kind of s

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

On Thursday, 24 May 2012 16:56:39 UTC+2, Snark wrote: > > Le mercredi 23 mai, mmarco a écrit: > > I did build the chroot image, but when i test it sage fails at startup > > because gap cannot load several packages. It seems that they are not > > installed. I suspect that those packages are mis

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le mercredi 23 mai, mmarco a écrit: > I did build the chroot image, but when i test it sage fails at startup > because gap cannot load several packages. It seems that they are not > installed. I suspect that those packages are missing. Does the tarball > that you uploaded work for you on its own?

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le mardi 22 mai, Julien Puydt a écrit: > http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/jpuydt/sage-5.0-armv7l-Linux.tar.bz2 I forgot : $ md5sum sage-5.0-armv7l-Linux.tar.bz2 ad53951e62c802071844f9bc6d5763d8 sage-5.0-armv7l-Linux.tar.bz2 if you don't get the same, perhaps the upload isn't finished yet (

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le lundi 21 mai, mmarco a écrit: > I am a bit busy now, but if you pass me a tarball with the compiled > sage directory in it i can try to create a chroot environment to be > run in (rooted) android devices. Sorry it took so long -- apparently I've been slow to ask for an account :-P : http://box

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Dear William, > please provide Mr. Snark with an account on boxen! Mr. Snark -- please write to me offlist at wst...@gmail.com. > Thanks, > Dima > > > On Monday, 21 May 2012 18:11:36 UTC+2, Snark wrote: >> >> Le lundi 21 mai, mmarco a écr

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Dear William, please provide Mr. Snark with an account on boxen! Thanks, Dima On Monday, 21 May 2012 18:11:36 UTC+2, Snark wrote: > > Le lundi 21 mai, mmarco a écrit: > > I am a bit busy now, but if you pass me a tarball with the compiled > > sage directory in it i can try to create a chroot en

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le lundi 21 mai, mmarco a écrit: > I am a bit busy now, but if you pass me a tarball with the compiled > sage directory in it i can try to create a chroot environment to be > run in (rooted) android devices. I'm running a "./sage -bdist 5.0" right now for you :-) The question is where I'll put th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le dimanche 20 mai, mmarco a écrit: > Which OS did you build it in? Ubuntu 12.04 armhf. Snark on #sagemath -- 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 thi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

Le Thu, 10 May 2012 22:37:15 -0700 (PDT), P Purkayastha a écrit : > On Friday, May 11, 2012 1:19:04 AM UTC+8, Snark wrote: > > > > > > 2) I understand the convenience of being able to install sage > > with minimum requirements in restricted cases, but still don't get > > why such a nice endeavou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Friday, May 11, 2012 1:19:04 AM UTC+8, Snark wrote: > > > 2) I understand the convenience of being able to install sage > with minimum requirements in restricted cases, but still don't get why > such a nice endeavour means all other cases must endure a long > compilation and big installations

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

Le jeudi 10 mai, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit: > On 2012-05-10 14:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > This is a huge overkill, at least on Linux, where gfortran is just > > one call to package manager away > If the user has root access, then yes. 1) There's no need for root access to install a compiler in one

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 12:05:31 UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2012-05-10 14:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > This is a huge overkill, at least on Linux, where gfortran is just one > > call to package manager away > If the user has root access, then yes. > IMHO the top-level README.txt sh

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/10/2012 08:05 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-05-10 14:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: This is a huge overkill, at least on Linux, where gfortran is just one call to package manager away If the user has root access, then yes. Yes. I only needed to install gfortran system-wide to stop gcc f

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-10 14:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > This is a huge overkill, at least on Linux, where gfortran is just one > call to package manager away If the user has root access, then yes. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 11:50:39 UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2012-05-10 12:56, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > it seems to me that missing gfortran alone should not trigger a build of > > the gcc spkg. > Several packages need a Fortran compiler. sure, I am perfectly aware of this... >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-10 12:56, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > it seems to me that missing gfortran alone should not trigger a build of > the gcc spkg. Several packages need a Fortran compiler. So, if gfortran is missing we *must* build GCC. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com T

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 07:42:44 UTC, P Purkayastha wrote: > > On 05/10/2012 03:37 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I see the problem. Originally, Sage (or you) decided to install the GCC > > package within Sage. As a consequence, MPIR was built without the C++ > > interface. From the MPIR lo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/10/2012 03:37 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: I see the problem. Originally, Sage (or you) decided to install the GCC package within Sage. As a consequence, MPIR was built without the C++ interface. From the MPIR log: Building a reduced version of MPIR to bootstrap GCC. MPIR will later get re

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

I see the problem. Originally, Sage (or you) decided to install the GCC package within Sage. As a consequence, MPIR was built without the C++ interface. From the MPIR log: > Building a reduced version of MPIR to bootstrap GCC. > MPIR will later get rebuilt (with the C++ interface and static libr

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/09/2012 11:08 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-05-09 13:06, P Purkayastha wrote: The build log is attached. The problem is actually with MPIR, can you send me the MPIR log file? Hi Jeroen, I am currently not physically near that machine (and I forgot to enable ssh on it since it is

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-09 13:06, P Purkayastha wrote: > The build log is attached. The problem is actually with MPIR, can you send me the MPIR log file? -- 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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/09/2012 05:49 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-05-09 11:45, P Purkayastha wrote: On 05/09/2012 03:57 PM, P Purkayastha wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyermailto:jdeme...@cage.ugent.be>> wrote: On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: > Actually, I alrea

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-09 11:45, P Purkayastha wrote: > On 05/09/2012 03:57 PM, P Purkayastha wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyer > > wrote: >> >> On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: >> > Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the sa

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/09/2012 03:57 PM, P Purkayastha wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyer mailto:jdeme...@cage.ugent.be>> wrote: On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: > Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the same way. And without setting any CFLAGS That's what I m

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: > > Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the same way. > And without setting any CFLAGS > That's what I meant. Without having set anything. Just plain "make." -- To post to this group, send

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: > Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the same way. And without setting any CFLAGS? -- 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 Fo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the same way. On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-05-09 09:34, P Purkayastha wrote: > > And I set the following CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS (and MAKE is empty): > > || > > ~/Installations/sage-5.0.rc0»exportCFLAGS="-march=native -O3 -pi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-09 09:34, P Purkayastha wrote: > And I set the following CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS (and MAKE is empty): > || > ~/Installations/sage-5.0.rc0»exportCFLAGS="-march=native -O3 -pipe" > ~/Installations/sage-5.0.rc0»exportCXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" What if you don't use -march=native? Could you recompile m

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-05-02 18:50, William Stein wrote: > Question: I have an old atom N270 netbook with Linux. Would it be > useful for me to turn this on and put on the internet for sage build > testing? Just do it, so I can play with it :-) -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-05-01 17:38, William Stein wrote: >> Thanks for researching this!  So I could buy a Trim-Slice H250 for >> about $350, get a name assigned to it (trim.math.washington.edu)? and >> put it in our server room.  But it will take 10 hours

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-05-01 17:38, William Stein wrote: > Thanks for researching this! So I could buy a Trim-Slice H250 for > about $350, get a name assigned to it (trim.math.washington.edu)? and > put it in our server room. But it will take 10 hours to build sage. 10 hours isn't so bad. We already have 3 bui

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

Le mardi 01 mai, Dima Pasechnik a écrit: > I suppose 10 hours is still acceptable for a build (I expect it > actually be quicker with a HD, > as the solid state drive in my AC100 is kind of slow, and might take > a lot of wallclock time > during the build). More memory will also shorten the build

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:38:26 PM UTC, William wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >>> On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-04-2

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>> On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote: > Will some day ARM be one of the platforms of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote: >>> Will some day ARM be one of the platforms oficially supported? >> I guess a platform can only be truly officially supported if there is a >> buildbot for it.  If

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

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

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote: > Will some day ARM be one of the platforms oficially supported? I guess a platform can only be truly officially supported if there is a buildbot for it. If we don't test on ARM, sooner or later something will break. -- To post to this group, send an email to s

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

Le samedi 28 avril, Dima Pasechnik a écrit: > On 2012-04-28, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > here is a new report on the status of sage on ARM (ubuntu) : I just > > got a successful build of 5.0.beta14 -- no patch, no special spkg, > > just the bare, unadorned, ugly-as-can-be 5.0.beta14. > > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM, David Roe wrote: >> As for why your viewpoint might be harmful: I have heard anecdotes of >> people >> not wanting to release their code because it was ugly, or nonstandard, or >> difficult to use, etc. As long as the response that they are going to >> receive >> i

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:08, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>> Can we get Lion on bsd.math.washington.edu ? >> >> I could, but then we will no longer have a 10.6 build/test machine, I >> think,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Can we get Lion on bsd.math.washington.edu ? I could, but then we will no longer have a 10.6 build/test machine, I think, and that would be bad. Also, I can't do this until next week, since I'm in San Diego right now. > sqrt5 is down again

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

Can we get Lion on bsd.math.washington.edu ? sqrt5 is down again... Dima -- 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://groups.google.com

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

I agree of course that we should converse in a civil manner. On Friday, February 3, 2012 10:39:45 PM UTC-8, Jonathan Bober wrote: > > In general, person X might use nonstandard GNU extension Y for many > reasons, > In my experience, it usually boils down to 5) Person used language extension wi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

Le 04/02/2012 07:39, Jonathan Bober a écrit : For another example: I recently tried to compile some of my own code using clang++ and discovered that I am not allowed to do void f(int j) { complex x[j]; [...] } even though g++ accepts that. ( See http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.htm

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

> > As for why your viewpoint might be harmful: I have heard anecdotes of > people > not wanting to release their code because it was ugly, or nonstandard, or > difficult to use, etc. As long as the response that they are going to > receive > it along the lines of the above, that viewpoint is valid

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > But it makes the code unportable. What hope do we have with the Sun/Oracle > compiler if idiots use non-standard C? What hope do we have if we try to > build on Windows at some point in the future using a native compiler? All > these GNU

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Friday, February 3, 2012 8:33:53 AM UTC-8, William wrote: > > > Just to clarify, does gcc-4.2 *not* come with the latex XCode 4.x, but > it came with earlier XCode 4.x's?I have gcc-4.2 on my laptop, and > I've never installed anything but XCode 4.x on it. > > Just curious. > I think that

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Feb 1, 2012, at 04:46 , Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:01:41 AM UTC+8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri wrote: [snip] >> I've started looking into the difficulties of getting sage to build >> with clang (on lion), and hav

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 04:46, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:01:41 AM UTC+8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:01:41 AM UTC+8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein > wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 1

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 14:13, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 15:52, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > On 01/31/12 09:20 PM, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:13, Volker Braun  wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: (Beyond the issue of fortran) I'm not sure if

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On 01/31/12 09:20 PM, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:13, Volker Braun wrote: On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: (Beyond the issue of fortran) I'm not sure if it will be possible to build all of the sage libraries with clang. For instance,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

What I'm trying to say is: Upstream needs to be informed that they shouldn't use non-standard C extensions. Nested functions especially are a bad design choice in a world that is moving away from executable stacks. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubs

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein > wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 16,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:13, Volker Braun wrote: > On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> (Beyond the issue of fortran) I'm not sure if it will be possible to >> build all of the sage libraries with clang. For instance, it currently >> doesn't yet support nes

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > > (Beyond the issue of fortran) I'm not sure if it will be possible to > build all of the sage libraries with clang. For instance, it currently > doesn't yet support nested functions, which I know at least ratpoints > uses. > C

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:42:4

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2012, at 14:04 , William Stein wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona wrote: > After building Sage on OS X 10.7, "make test" did this: > >> Let me run the full test suite of Sage first, having built PAR

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Jan 17, 2012, at 14:04 , William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona wrote: After building Sage on OS X 10.7, "make test" did this: > Let me run the full test suite of Sage first, having built PARI with > -O0 and see what happens. If that works, I will just ne

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, John Cremona wrote: > On 17 January 2012 23:04, William Stein wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona wrote: > After building Sage on OS X 10.7, "make test" did this: For the record, running tests with "sage -t devel/sage/sage" yield

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On 17 January 2012 23:04, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona wrote: After building Sage on OS X 10.7, "make test" did this: >>> >>> For the record, running tests with "sage -t devel/sage/sage" yields >>> hundred(s) of failing files: >>> >>>   http://wstein.o

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona wrote: >>> After building Sage on OS X 10.7, "make test" did this: >> >> For the record, running tests with "sage -t devel/sage/sage" yields >> hundred(s) of failing files: >> >>   http://wstein.org/home/wstein/tmp/test-sage-5.0.beta1-osx10.7.txt >> >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:42:49 AM UTC-8, William wrote: Hi, A major blocker for Sage-5

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

>> After building Sage on OS X 10.7, "make test" did this: > > For the record, running tests with "sage -t devel/sage/sage" yields > hundred(s) of failing files: > >   http://wstein.org/home/wstein/tmp/test-sage-5.0.beta1-osx10.7.txt > > It could be that most of these boil down to some code at the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri > wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:42:49 AM UTC-8, William wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> A major blocker for Sage-5.0 is supporting OS X (version 10.7 -- the >>> version that has be

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On 2012-01-17 03:24, Dan Drake wrote: >> Huh? So I guess running "make test" doesn't work right in >> sage-5.0.beta1 since sage-env is missing (why?). > > Is it related to http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11073 ? Yes, it is. Should be fixed now in the latest version of #11073. -- To

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 at 03:43PM -0800, William Stein wrote: > Testing that Sage starts... > [2012-01-16 09:10:19] Sage version 5.0.beta1, released 2012-01-13 > Yes, Sage starts. > . local/bin/sage-env && sage-maketest > /bin/sh: local/bin/sage-env: No such file or directory > make: *** [test] Error

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:42:49 AM UTC-8, William wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> A major blocker for Sage-5.0 is supporting OS X (version 10.7 -- the >> version that has been out for months now). >> >> Fortunately, it is now "relatively eas

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Jonathan wrote: > Since all the changes are basically user interface changes, I think it > mostly needs interactive testing.  I also think that the major issues > are design, not whether it does what was intended (I fear my > intentions may be misinterpretations of

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Jonathan wrote: > I'd like to get wider distribution of the new interface for Jmol.  I'm > sure it is not perfect, but I'm getting no feedback with it as an > optional .spkg.  I'm pretty sure it works as well as what is in Sage > now, so although it needs input and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Jonathan wrote: > I'd like to get wider distribution of the new interface for Jmol.  I'm > sure it is not perfect, but I'm getting no feedback with it as an > optional .spkg.  I'm pretty sure it works as well as what is in Sage > now, so although it needs input and