On 08/22/10 09:39 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2010-08-22 10:38, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I thought the new PARI doesn't work on Solaris. In fact, you wrote on
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9343#comment:281
I can confirm what John found on 't2.math' - this package is now
broken on So
On 08/22/10 09:38 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2010-08-22 03:45, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I don't know if sage 4.6 is going to be an exclusively Pari release, but
if not, it would be really good to get #9703 and #9735 merged, as then
there are two new complete ports, where all doc tests pass
*
On 2010-08-22 10:38, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I thought the new PARI doesn't work on Solaris. In fact, you wrote on
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9343#comment:281
>> I can confirm what John found on 't2.math' - this package is now
> broken on Solaris 10 SPARC in at least 32-it mode.
On 2010-08-22 03:45, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> I don't know if sage 4.6 is going to be an exclusively Pari release, but
> if not, it would be really good to get #9703 and #9735 merged, as then
> there are two new complete ports, where all doc tests pass
>
> * Solaris 10 x86 (32-bit)
I thought the
On 16 August 2010 13:38, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> On 08/16/10 11:51 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> The spkg sympow (Mark Watkins's C library for computing symmetric
>> power L-functions, which applications) is causing more and more
>> problems (see #9705 for example)
>
> John,
>
> I think you mean
On 08/16/10 11:51 AM, John Cremona wrote:
The spkg sympow (Mark Watkins's C library for computing symmetric
power L-functions, which applications) is causing more and more
problems (see #9705 for example)
John,
I think you mean #9703 - #9705 looks unrelated to SYMPOW to me.
#9166 (Cygwin rela
On 08/ 8/10 05:09 AM, Jason B Hill wrote:
In your opinion, is it better to leave the current behavior of including
fpu.c on Itanium Linux systems, or just remove that since it will be safer?
Be a bit careful with the language here. If someone has an older
(pre-Montecito) Itanium, then from wh
>
> In your opinion, is it better to leave the current behavior of including
> fpu.c on Itanium Linux systems, or just remove that since it will be safer?
>
>
Be a bit careful with the language here. If someone has an older
(pre-Montecito) Itanium, then from what I understand it is perfectly
plausi
On 08/ 6/10 04:06 AM, Jason B Hill wrote:
Has sympow been tested on Itanium Linux much?
Itanium versions exist in the repositories for Debian (Lenny/Sid), Ubuntu
and Fedora. So, the short answer is "yes."
Thank you.
If I'm not mistaken, that script will include x86 based code for the
floa
Has sympow been tested on Itanium Linux much?
>
Itanium versions exist in the repositories for Debian (Lenny/Sid), Ubuntu
and Fedora. So, the short answer is "yes."
>
> If I'm not mistaken, that script will include x86 based code for the
> floating point processor (in the file fpu.c) if the syst
10 matches
Mail list logo
