Hi Camm,
I'm looking at the GCL bits of Bill's message
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2006-09/msg00297.html
bash-2.05$ diff -Naur gcl-2.6.8pre_orig gcl-2.6.8pre
diff -Naur gcl-2.6.8pre_orig/h/solaris.defs
gcl-2.6.8pre/h/solaris.defs
--- gcl-2.6.8pre_orig/h
On 11/18/2006 10:53 PM, Martin Rubey wrote:
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This ultimately raised the issue of how to enforce testsuite and the
whole build process. I don't have much time left this afternoon. I
know of DejaGnu framework and the QMTest framework for running
testsu
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > | > Given that, I would like to temporarilly revert the patch
| > | > and work it out in fuller details. Opinions?
| > | >
| > |
| > | I believe the current patch is harmless when it comes to the
| > | possible proclaim optimization and that it
test
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This ultimately raised the issue of how to enforce testsuite and the
> > whole build process. I don't have much time left this afternoon. I
> > know of DejaGnu framework and the QMTest framework for running
> > testsuite. I have far more extensive e
On November 18, 2006 2:40 PM Gaby wrote:
Bill Page wrote:
> ...
> | No. I am referring to the fact that mutual dependencies in the
> | Algebra code are not fully satisfied by the current
> |
> | bootstrap (Lisp) -> rest of algeba -> bootstrap (spad)
> |
> | process. It is necessary to add ano
This ultimately raised the issue of how to enforce testsuite and the
whole build process. I don't have much time left this afternoon. I
know of DejaGnu framework and the QMTest framework for running
testsuite. I have far more extensive experience with DejaGnu than
with QMTest. On the other han
Le samedi 18 novembre 2006 à 19:17 +0100, Francois Maltey a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> 1/ Can I overwrite only few functions in a package ?
>
> I want to keep exposed the built-in function
> removeSinSq $ TranscendentalManipulations (Integer, Expression Interger)
> and use my own function in my own
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On November 18, 2006 2:34 AM Gaby wrote:
| >
| > Bill Page writes:
| >
| > |
| > | Building Axiom twice is normal practice in order to obtain
| > | optimized function calls in gcl.
| >
| > Ahem, it is new -- not "normal" build process :-). I believe t
Francois Maltey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> 1/ Can I overwrite only few functions in a package ?
>
> I want to keep exposed the built-in function
> removeSinSq $ TranscendentalManipulations (Integer, Expression Interger)
> and use my own function in my own package :
> expand $
Hello,
1/ Can I overwrite only few functions in a package ?
I want to keep exposed the built-in function
removeSinSq $ TranscendentalManipulations (Integer, Expression Interger)
and use my own function in my own package :
expand $ UsualExpand (Integer, Expression Interger)
Is it possible ?
On November 18, 2006 2:34 AM Gaby wrote:
>
> Bill Page writes:
>
> |
> | Building Axiom twice is normal practice in order to obtain
> | optimized function calls in gcl.
>
> Ahem, it is new -- not "normal" build process :-). I believe the
> build system on trunk does not build twice.
>
I meant
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I guess it depends on the details of how such things are handled. You
| are proposing to have code at the SPAD level talk directly to things
| like external libraries?
My proposal is to formally specify a way for SPAD codes to talk to
external libraries.
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, thanks for the explanation.
>
> Since I'm not in the business of cloning Aldor, I'm not sure how that
> affects Axiom.
The discussions I am seeing so far seem to largely indicate that we
need to take SPAD i
Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > False alarm -- they are built "early".
| >
| > However.
| >
| > I think I have a better understanding than I had three hours ago.
| > The last test I did was with revision 283.
| >
| > In that revision, the whole AXIOMsy
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> False alarm -- they are built "early".
>
> However.
>
> I think I have a better understanding than I had three hours ago.
> The last test I did was with revision 283.
>
> In that revision, the whole AXIOMsys seems to be built twice:
>
> (1) once as usual
> -
Hi,
The basic idea of this patch is to push into package boottran when
translating Boot files.
Apparently, boottran::boottocl is the most tested function. It gets
it right. But other similar translation functions (e.g. the cousine
boottran::boottoclc) do not; therefore the will do incorr
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby,
|
| > yes, it deletes the existing NRLIBs.
| > However, I'm not sure where whole SPAD needs to be recompiled, or only
| > AXIOMSsys. I believe it is AXIOMsys only. In that case, we need to
| > keep the previous .fn and .data files for latter use. An
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| first, bill burge loved puns and i remember him explaining to me
| that the latest version of boot was much better and more comfortable,
Indeed, the "new boot" is much more comfortable than "old boot", in
many respects. It has a preliminary support for (
Gaby,
> yes, it deletes the existing NRLIBs.
> However, I'm not sure where whole SPAD needs to be recompiled, or only
> AXIOMSsys. I believe it is AXIOMsys only. In that case, we need to
> keep the previous .fn and .data files for latter use. And it should
> be planned ahead.
The function
20 matches
Mail list logo
