Actually, the easiest solution for all is if we just switch over to
the GMP gcd/gcdext code and ditch our own. Then it is guaranteed to be
the same interface.
I think we can do this in less than a day's work. I don't think we'll
loose anything dramatic by doing this. In fact I think their code
mig
I've not used githib before. But there's now a git repo at:
g...@github.com:wbhart/bsdnt.git
So how do we make this work. Does everyone just push onto a branch there?
I can add your ssh public key if you provide it to me.
Bill.
On 12 April 2010 23:48, Bill Hart wrote:
> Yeah, I'll do a git re
Yeah, I'll do a git repo now, if I can remember how.
Note I haven't licensed my files BSD yet. I will if there is
sufficient interest to warrant it. So far there seems to be some
interest.
Bill.
On 12 April 2010 23:37, Antony Vennard wrote:
> I was just about to reply that OpenMP is supported i
I was just about to reply that OpenMP is supported in MSVC. I wouldn't
have suggested it for MPIR otherwise as it wouldn't build. icc is free
for non-commercial use on Linux, which this constitutes, and supports
OpenMP too. However, I think it does some funny business with binaries
i.e. optimising
On Apr 12, 11:05 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 21:04, Antony Vennard wrote:
>
> > Yes.
>
> > Can we manage it with git? Is there a git repo already...?
>
> There's no git repo yet. But yes, we have to manage it with git. svn
> is too limiting.
>
> But we'd need to give very careful th
Brian points out that MSVC has openMP support. As it is just pragmas
it'll be ignored by PCC (so long as we don't call OpenMP functions).
So yeah, why not. Let's fill the code with pragmas.
So we should target pcc, gcc, MSVC and possibly icc.
Six problems we have right off:
* no longlong.h (so f
On 12 April 2010 21:04, Antony Vennard wrote:
> Yes.
>
> Can we manage it with git? Is there a git repo already...?
There's no git repo yet. But yes, we have to manage it with git. svn
is too limiting.
But we'd need to give very careful thought to how we do Windows
support (git doesn't work very
On Apr 12, 8:47 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> Rather than talk about hypothetical code I wrote when I was thinking
> of producing BSD licensed library, I may as well expose it:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/mpir-bsd/
>
> It has a magic makefile system such that if you drop files in, t
Yes.
Can we manage it with git? Is there a git repo already...?
Can I write #pragma omp declarations all over it? I.e. can I start
parallelising things early on? I'll license all contributions on MPIR as
BSD which is easily compatible with LGPLv3 then I'm good, really,
providing I don't duplicate
I forgot one thing:
* Assume throughout that all supported systems will have IEEE doubles.
This opens numerous possibilities not currently explored in MPIR or
GMP.
BIll.
On 12 April 2010 20:47, Bill Hart wrote:
> Rather than talk about hypothetical code I wrote when I was thinking
> of producin
As quite a lot of people have mentioned the possibility of a BSD
licensed MPIR, I started a separate thread for this.
Bill.
On 12 April 2010 14:57, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for the extensive reply, very much appreciated.
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Bill Hart
> wrote:
Rather than talk about hypothetical code I wrote when I was thinking
of producing BSD licensed library, I may as well expose it:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wbhart/mpir-bsd/
It has a magic makefile system such that if you drop files in, they
just build automatically.
Simply do make chec
hi Bill,
Thanks for the extensive reply, very much appreciated.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 11:18, Pierre Joye wrote:
> The main appeal is that we can use code from GMP without replicating
> their efforts and accept code from developers who want to li
On Apr 12, 1:18 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 13:06, Cactus wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 11:18 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >> hi,
>
> >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
> >> >> Hello,
>
> >> >> I am not sure I underst
On 12 April 2010 13:06, Cactus wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 12, 11:18 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart
>> wrote:
>> > On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>>
>> >> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
>> >> happened
To follow up from the previous post, I want to give a list of all the
things that people have offered to contribute to the MPIR project from
"outside" the project. I don't want to give the impression that
absolutely no one is contributing anything new to MPIR:
* Jason Martin recently contributed s
On Apr 12, 11:18 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> > On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
> >> happened, 2 of the main stated goals where:
> >> 1) LGPL2 (requ
Hi Pierre,
Thanks very much for your questions and comments. I attempt to answer
them below based on my (limited) understanding at this point in time.
Others might be able to give more clear or helpful answers.
On 12 April 2010 11:18, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM,
hi,
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
>> happened, 2 of the main stated goals where:
>> 1) LGPL2 (required for sage+microsoft)
>> --> MPIR is now LGPL3+ only
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
