Sorry, I need to be more clear. We aren't going to purposely break anything. And if you wish to maintain MPIR on HP-UX and PA-RISC, then you are more than welcome.
The only reason it passes all the self tests at the moment is that we removed a good proportion of the broken assembly language. The likelihood is that we'll remove all the assembly language. ****This won't stop it building or passing tests****, it'll just take slightly longer to run make check and slightly less time to build. Our reasons for removing the assembly code are complicated, but sound. As this is not a targeted platform, for either Sage or MPIR it shouldn't actually affect anybody in a negative way, as no one is genuinely going to be using MPIR for actual computations on that platform. The main point here is that even if HP-UX does become a supported platform (because Linux on Itanium goes south), HP-UX on PA-RISC will never become a supported platform. That at least, is very dead, even according to HP. Bill. On Feb 1, 4:27 am, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 31 January 2010 14:27, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw > > its grave. > > > Here is one of the many obituaries: > > >http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 > > > I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. > > Yes, but now I find MPIR does build and pass all tests on HP-UX, I > would retract that - like all web pages, that one is a bit out of > date. > > > Well, not > > only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but some time between now and > > March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- > > RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though > > not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one > > has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the > > expertise. > > MPIR does pass all tests on the PA-RISC. Give it is working, is it a > good idea to purposely break it? The fact it failed on your PA-RISC > machine which was not running the normal operating system for such a > platform, which is HP-UX, > > > We'll also be removing the assembly support for a plethora of other > > platforms that have long died, even their manufacturers disowning > > them. The rule will be: if people aren't using it, and we don't have > > access to one and it is more than a certain number of years old, > > support will be discontinued. Supporting dead architectures is a > > massive waste of developer effort. > > I'm not asking you to support them. Just leave them running if they > work. PA-RISC on HP-UX does work. > > > We urgently need ports to Solaris 64 bit > > which I am working on, though concentrating on Open Solaris. One > reason for doing that is that I have much faster hardware on > OpenSolaris. I expect once the 64-bit issues are resolved on Open > Solaris, and assuming we can get the 32-bit working again (broken in > 4.3.1), I think there is every chance a 64-bit port will occur on > SPARC. But perhaps not just now. > > I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not > purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes > all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an > unreasonable request. > > If someone tells you they use something, and it works for them, why go > out of the way to break it for them? > > Dave. -- 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/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
