On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 2:28:31 AM UTC-5, P Purkayastha wrote:
> According to wiki, it will be around for a couple more years.
>
Theoretically yes, but in practice I think no Sage developer has even seen
the current Itanium 9300 hardware. All we have access to is an old chip
from back
On 11/14/2012 11:38 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
I would be in favor of delegating Itanium to a second class platform. As
less and less people have access to it its bound to become more
troublesome. Of course there is value in having it working eventually,
but it doesn't have to be on the first day.
I would be in favor of delegating Itanium to a second class platform. As
less and less people have access to it its bound to become more
troublesome. Of course there is value in having it working eventually, but
it doesn't have to be on the first day.
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:09:08 PM
On 2012-11-13, Volker Braun wrote:
> --=_Part_133_37800.1352827000551
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Apparently it won't. Itanium doesn't work correctly and it doesn't look
> like Clint (=Upstream) will have time anytime soon to look into it. If I
> were him I'd think twi
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 05:11:54PM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-10-14 15:54, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> > I didn't understand did someone try it on 10.04 probably in VM?
> Yes, it was tested in Ubuntu 10.04, not in a VM.
>
> I just tested that binary again on that machine and both your tes
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:02:58 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> The binaries are
> 1) supposed to be generic, anything else is a (low-priority) bug.
> 2) certainly tested on the platforms they are built on.
>
Also, the new ATLAS spkg uses the new "generic" archdefs and should fix
this.
On 2012-10-14 15:54, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> I didn't understand did someone try it on 10.04 probably in VM?
Yes, it was tested in Ubuntu 10.04, not in a VM.
I just tested that binary again on that machine and both your testcases
work.
> 12.04 certainly depends on ubuntu's libgfortran3 and it ma
> There is no such thing like generic x86_64, AFAIK.
Actually, there is. There is a lowest common denominator (which I
think, actually includes SSE and SSE2).
The binaries are
1) supposed to be generic, anything else is a (low-priority) bug.
2) certainly tested on the platforms they are built on.
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 22:18:15 UTC+8, Georgi Guninski wrote:
>
> i mean did anyone beside me tested the disputed testcases on any ubuntu
> 10.04?
>
I presume whoever built the said binary did test it on his/her machine.
There is no such thing like generic x86_64, AFAIK.
Intel did it one
i mean did anyone beside me tested the disputed testcases on any ubuntu
10.04?
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:11:41PM +0800, P Purkayastha wrote:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@goo
On 10/14/2012 09:54 PM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:18:54AM -0700, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 20:16:40 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-10-14 10:16, P Purkayastha wrote:
It is not whether the CPU has any bug. The sage binaries and the
librarie
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:18:54AM -0700, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, 14 October 2012 20:16:40 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> >
> > On 2012-10-14 10:16, P Purkayastha wrote:
> > > It is not whether the CPU has any bug. The sage binaries and the
> > > libraries it depends on are (I be
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 20:16:40 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2012-10-14 10:16, P Purkayastha wrote:
> > It is not whether the CPU has any bug. The sage binaries and the
> > libraries it depends on are (I believe) compiled with some minimal level
> > of optimization. Maybe some optim
On 2012-10-14 10:16, P Purkayastha wrote:
> It is not whether the CPU has any bug. The sage binaries and the
> libraries it depends on are (I believe) compiled with some minimal level
> of optimization. Maybe some optimization got applied in the atlas
> library which is not present in your cpu.
As
It is not whether the CPU has any bug. The sage binaries and the
libraries it depends on are (I believe) compiled with some minimal level
of optimization. Maybe some optimization got applied in the atlas
library which is not present in your cpu. Typically, the atlas library
will run fine as lon
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:29:52PM +0800, P Purkayastha wrote:
> Both the examples work here in sage-5.2 and sage-5.4beta1. What
> version of Sage are you using?
>
5.3 on ubuntu 10.04 x86_64.
5.2 crashes too for me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s
On 10/12/2012 10:21 PM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
Simpler testcase:
g=graphs.CycleGraph(44);m=g.adjacency_matrix()
m^7
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 05:03:49PM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:
g=DiGraph('kO??A???O??A???O??A???O??A???O??A???O??A???O??A???
17 matches
Mail list logo
