Hi Jeff,
I just downloaded the tarball and the file is there for me in
mpn/x86_64w/addmul_2.asm
There must be something up with the paths in the project files.
Perhaps Brian can take a look at this.
Bill.
2009/4/22 mabshoff :
>
>
>
> On Apr 21, 5:25 pm, Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21
On Apr 21, 5:25 pm, Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Bill Hart
> wrote:
> > I've put release candidate 1 for MPIR 1.1.1 up on the website.
>
> Houston we have a problem (you guys must really love me by now)...
Well, as long as you are finding bugs I don't see any prob
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I've put release candidate 1 for MPIR 1.1.1 up on the website.
Houston we have a problem (you guys must really love me by now)...
First the good news, it works fine with my gcc 3.x k8 system, and to
good core2 system. The one causing us prob
On Apr 21, 3:29 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 21, 1:12 pm, Jason Moxham wrote:
>
> > All the machines on skynet that have compilers installed are OK
>
> > We are set to go :)
>
> I reported the problem on menas to Mariah yesterday and I got an email
> earlier today that it was fixed. The proble
I've put release candidate 1 for MPIR 1.1.1 up on the website.
This fixes a build issue with pathscale compilers on x86_64 under
linux and adds some assembly files that were missing from the Windows
distribution.
We welcome any and all build reports, whether successes or failures.
Bill.
--~--~-
On Apr 21, 1:12 pm, Jason Moxham wrote:
> All the machines on skynet that have compilers installed are OK
>
> We are set to go :)
I reported the problem on menas to Mariah yesterday and I got an email
earlier today that it was fixed. The problem was that binutils 2.19-1
did no longer function
Thanks.
2009/4/21 Jason Moxham :
>
>
> Done
>
>
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 22:26:28 Bill Hart wrote:
>> Could you run autoconf and automake. I've updated the version numbers
>> in gmp-h.in and binary numbers in Makefile.am but when I do make dist,
>> it gives me mpir-1.1.tar.gz not mpir-1.1.1.tar
Done
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 22:26:28 Bill Hart wrote:
> Could you run autoconf and automake. I've updated the version numbers
> in gmp-h.in and binary numbers in Makefile.am but when I do make dist,
> it gives me mpir-1.1.tar.gz not mpir-1.1.1.tar.gz, so I think the
> automake on sage.math is
Could you run autoconf and automake. I've updated the version numbers
in gmp-h.in and binary numbers in Makefile.am but when I do make dist,
it gives me mpir-1.1.tar.gz not mpir-1.1.1.tar.gz, so I think the
automake on sage.math isn't doing anything.
Bill.
2009/4/21 Jason Moxham :
>
>
> All the
On Apr 21, 7:31 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> There was a proposal to maintain a GPL v3+ version of MPIR with some
> of the code that has ended up in GMP 4.3.0 in it, as for the most
> part, Sage could use it. But it seemed like too much of a distraction
> from our current priorities. I don't personall
All the machines on skynet that have compilers installed are OK
We are set to go :)
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 21:00:33 you wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 17:47:23 Bill Hart wrote:
> > Great, so we can do 1.1.1.
> >
> > Let's do the following:
> >
> > * I'll issue a release candidate (hopeful
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 17:47:23 Bill Hart wrote:
> Great, so we can do 1.1.1.
>
> Let's do the following:
>
> * I'll issue a release candidate (hopefully later today).
> * Jeff could you verify that the release candidate works on your
> machine as expected.
> * Jeff could you also check the buil
I believe one of those boxes is actually broken atm. I recall Michael
saying something went wrong with menas. I'll ask him about fulvia when
I see him.
Bill.
2009/4/21 Jason Moxham :
>
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 17:47:23 Bill Hart wrote:
>> Great, so we can do 1.1.1.
>>
>> Let's do the following
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 17:47:23 Bill Hart wrote:
> Great, so we can do 1.1.1.
>
> Let's do the following:
>
> * I'll issue a release candidate (hopefully later today).
> * Jeff could you verify that the release candidate works on your
> machine as expected.
> * Jeff could you also check the buil
There was a proposal to maintain a GPL v3+ version of MPIR with some
of the code that has ended up in GMP 4.3.0 in it, as for the most
part, Sage could use it. But it seemed like too much of a distraction
from our current priorities. I don't personally want to get
sidetracked by that, as I expect
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> Let's do the following:
>
> * I'll issue a release candidate (hopefully later today).
> * Jeff could you verify that the release candidate works on your
> machine as expected.
> * Jeff could you also check the build proceeds on Windows on the
Superb!!
2009/4/21 Jeff Gilchrist :
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Jason Moxham
> wrote:
>
>> Here's the new config.guess
>>
>> As this the only part we have changed ,
>> just testing ./config.guess returns the correct cpu will be sufficient
>
> Yes it works, woohoo!
>
> Returns: penryn-u
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Jason Moxham
wrote:
> Here's the new config.guess
>
> As this the only part we have changed ,
> just testing ./config.guess returns the correct cpu will be sufficient
Yes it works, woohoo!
Returns: penryn-unknown-linux-gnu
Just because this system is so crazy
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:38 AM, dmharvey wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I have made a basic spkg for GMP 4.3.0:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/dmharvey/gmp-4.3.0.spkg
>
> I've only tested on a linux opteron system. It builds fine; there are
> various doctest failures that look related to non
Great, so we can do 1.1.1.
Let's do the following:
* I'll issue a release candidate (hopefully later today).
* Jeff could you verify that the release candidate works on your
machine as expected.
* Jeff could you also check the build proceeds on Windows on the
machines you'd like to test on as we
Here's the new config.guess
As this the only part we have changed ,
just testing ./config.guess returns the correct cpu will be sufficient
Thanks
Jason
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 17:15:39 Jason Moxham wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 16:04:00 Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 16:04:00 Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Jason Moxham
>
> wrote:
> > This is getting stranger , jeff1.c is or perhaps I should say supposed to
> > be exactly the same same as mpir generated {dummy}32.c
> >
> > Can you a diff for us
>
> This does
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Jason Moxham
wrote:
> This is getting stranger , jeff1.c is or perhaps I should say supposed to be
> exactly the same same as mpir generated {dummy}32.c
>
> Can you a diff for us
This does not make any sense. You are right the only difference is
that you added
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 15:15:28 Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Jason Moxham
wrote:
> > Ok , I'll send a a few c files , and if you can try each one , and let
> > us know when they start working , or a different error pops up.
> > heres the first one
>
> jeff1.c:
Th
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Jason Moxham wrote:
> Ok , I'll send a a few c files , and if you can try each one , and let us
> know when they start working , or a different error pops up.
> heres the first one
jeff1.c:
jeff1.c:9: warning: return type defaults to ‘int’
jeff1.c: In func
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 13:01:09 Jason Moxham wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 12:35:35 Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Jason Moxham
>
> wrote:
> > > We've got to narrow this down
> > >
> > > we know it not the asm file
> > > try swapping gmp's c file for mpir c file a
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 13:01:09 Jason Moxham wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 12:35:35 Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Jason Moxham
>
> wrote:
> > > We've got to narrow this down
> > >
> > > we know it not the asm file
> > > try swapping gmp's c file for mpir c file a
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 12:35:35 Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Jason Moxham
wrote:
> > We've got to narrow this down
> >
> > we know it not the asm file
> > try swapping gmp's c file for mpir c file and visa versa and see if we
> > can determine if it's the c file or t
It might be worth trying three versions of the C code:
1) just main with cpuid and check for the specific model number of
Jeff's machine and print core2
2) number 1 with stringinzing macro defined
3) number 1 with stringinzing done directly, no macro
And see if any fail.
Bill.
2009/4/21 Jeff G
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Jason Moxham wrote:
> We've got to narrow this down
>
> we know it not the asm file
> try swapping gmp's c file for mpir c file and visa versa and see if we can
> determine if it's the c file or the script config.guess
It is the C file. If I edit the config.gue
We've got to narrow this down
we know it not the asm file
try swapping gmp's c file for mpir c file and visa versa and see if we can
determine if it's the c file or the script config.guess
Thanks
Jason
Clutching at straws
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 11:06:39 Jeff Gilchrist wrote:
> On Tue, Apr
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Jason Moxham wrote:
> Your attatched gmp dummy32bit asm file is exactly the same as mpir dummy32bit
> asm file , so it must be either our C file , which has only one main , or how
> we call the compiler , again exactly the same as gmp
>
> I have NO IDEA whats goi
32 matches
Mail list logo
