On May 19, 2012, at 7:34 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> here is a fix:
>> in SAGE_ROOT (the directiry where Sage startup script, called sage, is), run
>> ./sage -f
>> http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/jdemeyer/spkg/mpir-2.4.0.p4.spkg
>> this will install a patched MPIR spkg.
>
>
> I get an inte
>
>
> here is a fix:
> in SAGE_ROOT (the directiry where Sage startup script, called sage, is),
> run
> ./sage -f
> http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/jdemeyer/spkg/mpir-2.4.0.p4.spkg
> this will install a patched MPIR spkg.
>
>
I get an interesting warning when doing this on a similar machi
As original creator of this thread, I followed the process described below.
I confirm that the original problem I reported has been resolved;
sage 5.0 is now usable for my projects.
Thank you Dima and all of the other team members who contributed to this
solution!
Jim Clark
On May 19, 2012, at 6
here is a fix:
in SAGE_ROOT (the directiry where Sage startup script, called sage, is), run
./sage -f
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/jdemeyer/spkg/mpir-2.4.0.p4.spkg
this will install a patched MPIR spkg.
Then run
./sage -b
to rebuild parts of Sage which depend upon MPIR (it takes a while,
On Friday, 18 May 2012 22:36:06 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2012-05-18 20:12, kcrisman wrote:
> >
> > How hard would it be for someone to bdist an app and non-app dmg of Sage
> > 5.0 for Intel Core Duo and then just make sure the download page makes
> > this clear? This would be a go
On 2012-05-18 20:12, kcrisman wrote:
>
> How hard would it be for someone to bdist an app and non-app dmg of Sage
> 5.0 for Intel Core Duo and then just make sure the download page makes
> this clear? This would be a good stopgap solution. Presumably others
> might download it and then just deci
How hard would it be for someone to bdist an app and non-app dmg of Sage
5.0 for Intel Core Duo and then just make sure the download page makes this
clear? This would be a good stopgap solution. Presumably others might
download it and then just decide not to bother getting it once it causes
On Friday, May 18, 2012 1:59:02 PM UTC-4, Niles Johnson wrote:
>
> I have the same problems.
>
> Hardware Overview:
>
> Model Name: MacBook Pro
> Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,3
> Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
> Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
> Number Of Processors
I have the same problems.
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,3
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 3 MB
Memory: 4 GB
Bu
By the way, I tried the binary sage-5.0-OSX-64bit-10.6-x86_64-Darwin.dmg
on my Mac Air running OSX 10.6.8, and it crashes on
sage: int(2.75)
as already reported. Here is the machine data:
Model Name: MacBook Air
Model Identifier: MacBookAir3,2
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor
OSX 10.6.*-era hardware is weird. Some of it is 32-bit only, some of it can
run both kernels (when you boot you need to press a combination of keys on
the keyboard), some of it is 64-bit.
All of them "can" run 64-bit applications, but I guess this "can" must be
taken with a pinch of salt...
I ha
"D. S. McNeil" writes:
>> For future reference, run `md5sum ` in a terminal to check the
>> MD5 sum of a file.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's md5, not md5sum, on OS X (at least in 10.6).
I see. I'm on Linux - here it's md5sum. I didn't realize it might be
different on OS X.
-Keshav
Join us in #s
> For future reference, run `md5sum ` in a terminal to check the
> MD5 sum of a file.
I'm pretty sure it's md5, not md5sum, on OS X (at least in 10.6).
Doug
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubsc
On May 17, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> Why not just look at the md5 checksum? That would have saved you
>>> downloading it a second time, and you would be 99.999 (not sure
>>> how many 9s) percent sure the file is not corrupted.
>>
>> Why? Because I don't know how to apply the c
Jim Clark writes:
> On May 17, 2012, at 6:05 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>>> Update: I downloaded and installed sage 5.0 again.
>>>
>>> The sequence of commands below induces the same SIGILL crash.
>>>
>>> I find it hard to blame a defective download.
>>
>> Why not just look at the md5 checksum?
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:08:55 AM UTC-4, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12954
>
> If somebody has the spkg/logs/mpfr-3.1.0.p1.log from within the dmg,
> please attach it to the ticket. My connection here is too slow to download
> it.
>
Volker,
This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12954
If somebody has the spkg/logs/mpfr-3.1.0.p1.log from within the dmg, please
attach it to the ticket. My connection here is too slow to download it.
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe fr
I was able to find a case which crashed but doesn't have to crash
Sage. Doesn't tell us much new, but here it is anyway:
sage: 12345678912345678912345678912345678901234567890.
---
RuntimeError Tr
> Doug, are you using the binary or did you compile your Sage?
Deliberately the binary; I've never had problems with a Sage I've
successfully compiled myself. [Haven't compiled 5.0 myself yet on
the Mac, though I did at work today on ubuntu 12.04 and it went fine.
Will probably try overnight.]
On 5/16/12 8:38 PM, D. S. McNeil wrote:
I can reproduce this on my 10.6.8 macbook:
sage: int(2)
2
sage: int(2.75)
Program received signal EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION, Illegal instruction/operand.
0x000101723ed9 in case1 ()
(gdb) bt
#0 0x000101723ed9 in case1 ()
#1 0x000103e8bba4 in parsed
20 matches
Mail list logo
