Actually, perhaps you wouldn't notice it on the bench at all. You
might notice it for things like mpz_get_ui which are inlined in gmp.h.
Bill.
2009/3/25 Bill Hart :
> The short answer is I don't know whether it causes a performance
> deficit. I also don't have a workaround at present.
>
> Howeve
The short answer is I don't know whether it causes a performance
deficit. I also don't have a workaround at present.
However this is a long standing issue, for which we have a ticket.
Obviously we've focused very much on the low hanging fruit performance
wise.
*If* it makes any difference, you w
I just tried compiling it on a brand new MacBook Pro (Core2) and it
works fine (make + make check) but I did see this in the output:
checking for inline... inline
configure: WARNING: mpir.h doesnt recognise compiler "inline", inlines
will be unavailable
So I'm not sure if that is a problem, will
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 17:12:11 Bill Hart wrote:
> That's a function of our growing arsenal of machines to test on, and
> the (unspecified) machines which sage developers test on.
>
> The reason for specifying a moving wall dependent on some measurable
> metric is that:
>
> 1) It doesn't depen
That's a function of our growing arsenal of machines to test on, and
the (unspecified) machines which sage developers test on.
The reason for specifying a moving wall dependent on some measurable
metric is that:
1) It doesn't depend on us (what we test on does)
2) It gives a rationale for retir
How about we cut out the cpu's that haven't been tested for x years say. If we
are going to rewrite/reorganize the mpn layer , then only the modern cpus and
C version will be tested anyway.
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:38:28 Bill Hart wrote:
> One thing we could do is remove support for chips
One thing we could do is remove support for chips with a "rolling
wall". If the manufacturing date for that architecture is more than
10, 15 or 20 years ago, say, we could remove support for it.
Funnily enough, this may not cut much out. The Intel 80386 for example
ceased to be made in September
Hi Mariah,
thanks for tracking this down for us. The patch is actually available
online at the link you gave. Perhaps the GMP server was having
temporary difficulties when you tried to access it from them again.
Given that this may affect the build on other architectures, I am
inclined to make a
There's been no word on the result of further testing in Sage, at this point.
I strongly suspect there will be no further candidates and this will
be final, but it seems logical to have the Sage developers test it as
part of their release cycle as the number of systems that it then gets
tested on
Just wondering what the status of 1.0.0 is. Are the changes people
have been talking about recently going to be rolled into 1.0.0 so we
will have an rc3 or will rc2 stay the same and become the official
1.0.0?
Jeff.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
10 matches
Mail list logo
