In the svn branch x86_64-cpuid is my attempt at re-organizing the x86_64
processors.
The file cpuid.c is now the only place where detection takes place , before we
had config.guess and the two fat.c , they now just #inlcude "cpuid.c"
cpuid.c returns the microarchitecture of the processor only
Looks so far for me. I did some Itanium2 tests, core2 tests. Windows
builds are looking good, all the tests are there and working after
that last commit Brian did. I forgot how out of date Itanium
processors are now that 64bit x86 have hit the scene.
Intel Core2 Q9550 @ 3.4GHz (45nm, Family 6,
Thanks Mariah, pathcc is definitely not a supported compiler at
present. We'll add a trac ticket for pathcc. We'll start with the
optimization level you recommend and see what else works.
Bill.
On 16/03/2009, Mariah Lenox wrote:
>
> On SkyNet/cato (mips64-Linux-SiCortex), the manufacturer recom
Those are yasm test failures not mpir as such. They are harmless.
We'll let the yasm people know.
Bill.
On 16/03/2009, Mariah Lenox wrote:
>
> mpir-1.0 built with gcc-4.3.3 fails 'make check' on SkyNet/fulvia
> (core2-pc-solaris2.10):
>
> make[5]: Entering directory
> `/home/mariah/mpir/mpir-1.
On SkyNet/cato (mips64-Linux-SiCortex), the manufacturer recommended
compiler is pathcc (www.pathscale.com); however gcc-4.1.2-gentoo
exists in /usr/bin/gcc. I do not know how to build a working
version of the latest stable release of gcc on this architecture.
mpir-1.0 builds with gcc-4.1.2-gent
mpir-1.0 built with gcc-4.3.3 fails 'make check' on SkyNet/fulvia
(core2-pc-solaris2.10):
make[5]: Entering directory `/home/mariah/mpir/mpir-1.0/src/obj-x86_64-SunOS-gcc
-4.3.3/yasm'
Test x86_test: ../../mpir-1.0/yasm/out_test.sh: test: argument expected
FAIL: modules/arch/x86/tests/x86_test.sh
Done.
Mariah
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:03 AM, mabshoff
wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 15, 1:09 pm, Jason Moxham wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I cant access cato either :(
>
> cato is not available to SkyNet account holders.
>
> Mariah: Can you please add Jason to the people who can log into cato?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
On 16/03/2009, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 10:00 am, Bill Hart wrote:
>> Someone with access to the machine is going to have to give me more clues.
>
> This is a Sage build on varro (a G5), but it is being run on a G4
> laptop we do not have access to.
>
OK.
>> How does it know that it
On Mar 16, 10:00 am, Bill Hart wrote:
> Someone with access to the machine is going to have to give me more clues.
This is a Sage build on varro (a G5), but it is being run on a G4
laptop we do not have access to.
> How does it know that it is an invalid cpu subtype?
I do not know, but I hav
Someone with access to the machine is going to have to give me more clues.
How does it know that it is an invalid cpu subtype? Does GMP produce
differently named binaries?
Were there any warnings during configure or make?
Are G5 and G4 cpus compatible? Isn't G5 64 bits?
Has anyone tried buildi
On Mar 16, 9:46 am, Bill Hart wrote:
> I have no particular insight into this. A G5 is a PPC right? Well, I
> don't know of anything that we've changed for PPC's.
Yes, I am surprised that the problem came up since I did not expect
any changes relative to MPIR 0.9 and the GMP 4.2.1 Sage shipped
I have no particular insight into this. A G5 is a PPC right? Well, I
don't know of anything that we've changed for PPC's.
It does appear to be looking for libgmp though, not libmpir. Perhaps
the --enable-gmplink configure option (which you used, as per the
instructions, right?) is not dealing cor
Hi,
Any comments about the below issue? I.e., can we build binaries on G5
of mpir that work on G4's like we did with GMP?
-- William
-- Forwarded message --
From: mabshoff
Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Subject: [sage-support] Re: Cannot copy on OSX
To: sage-support
On Mar 16, 3:49 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> I removed our modified mpir-0.9 branch, checked the original out an
> recomitted the clean version. As we never released 0.9.1, this seemed
> like the sensible thing to do. Obviously there is a new mpir-1.0
> branch. As we will definitely release service r
I removed our modified mpir-0.9 branch, checked the original out an
recomitted the clean version. As we never released 0.9.1, this seemed
like the sensible thing to do. Obviously there is a new mpir-1.0
branch. As we will definitely release service releases this time, all
bug fixes should go into
On Monday 16 March 2009 15:17:48 Bill Hart wrote:
> I checked the latest tarball and it seems ok now.
>
> Should also apply to the mpir-1.0 branch so that this change makes it
> into the service releases.
>
> Bill.
>
done
> 2009/3/16 Jason Moxham :
> > On Monday 16 March 2009 15:01:58 Bill Har
I checked the latest tarball and it seems ok now.
Should also apply to the mpir-1.0 branch so that this change makes it
into the service releases.
Bill.
2009/3/16 Jason Moxham :
>
> On Monday 16 March 2009 15:01:58 Bill Hart wrote:
>> I don't think that is right. svn does not preserve file perm
On Monday 16 March 2009 15:01:58 Bill Hart wrote:
> I don't think that is right. svn does not preserve file permissions.
>
> I've again tried to set the relevant flags in svn and updated the
> tarball. No idea whether it worked. But given that we've done this
> before, I think the make dist is the
I don't think that is right. svn does not preserve file permissions.
I've again tried to set the relevant flags in svn and updated the
tarball. No idea whether it worked. But given that we've done this
before, I think the make dist is the safest option.
Bill.
2009/3/16 Jason Moxham :
>
> On Mon
On Monday 16 March 2009 14:23:31 Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> I'm sure we've turned it on numerous times before. I think our svn is
> broken wrt that feature.
>
> Probably we should have make dist chmod it. Perhaps Jason can arrange that.
>
can do , but I think I know how to fix
delete co
I've killed most of these and the others you mentioned.
We could probably write assembly code for Athlon 64 and nocona and
have separate directories for them, but we can add a ticket should we
decide to do this.
Bill.
2009/3/16 Jason Moxham :
>
>
> #16 is not applicable anymore as this refered
I've added the same line to that section.
Bill.
2009/3/16 Cactus :
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 12:58 am, Bill Hart wrote:
>> We did make mention of MSVC support here:
>>
>> http://www.mpir.org/changes.html
>>
>> and also in the primary goals of MPIR. But I've spelled it out more
>> clearly by adding the
Hi Emmanuel,
I'm sure we've turned it on numerous times before. I think our svn is
broken wrt that feature.
Probably we should have make dist chmod it. Perhaps Jason can arrange that.
Bill.
2009/3/16 Emmanuel Thomé :
>
> On Mar 16, 1:38 am, Bill Hart wrote:
>> Here is the link to release cand
On Mar 16, 1:38 am, Bill Hart wrote:
> Here is the link to release candidate 2 tarball:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/mpir-1.0.tar.gz
config.guess has executable bit unset in this tarball, which seems
weird. Not too much of a problem, since install gets it right anyway.
svn pr
On Mar 16, 12:58 am, Bill Hart wrote:
> We did make mention of MSVC support here:
>
> http://www.mpir.org/changes.html
>
> and also in the primary goals of MPIR. But I've spelled it out more
> clearly by adding the sentence you gave to the list of primary goals.
>
> When we have everything runn
On Mar 15, 11:38 pm, Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> I have now tested 1.0 on an Itanium 2 system and all check outs.
>
> vendor : GenuineIntel
> arch : IA-64
> family : 32
> model : 0
> revision : 7
> gcc version 4.1.2 20070115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)
>
> The Windows MSVC projec
26 matches
Mail list logo
