On 4/5/2014 9:30 AM, Bill Hart wrote:
Cygwin/MinGW/Cygwin64/MinGW64:
wget http://mpir.org/mpir-2.7.0-alpha2.tar.bz2
tar -xvf mpir-2.7.0-alpha1.tar.bz2
cd mpir-2.7.0
./configure --enable-gmpcompat --enable-cxx --disable-static
make
make check
I wanted to report some things I ran into while bui
Brian Gladman wrote:
On 08/04/2014 00:14, Bill Hart wrote:
On Cygwin64 intmax_t should be long long. Anyway, we can compile those
guards and see which is evaluating incorrectly. Possibly some header
defining LLONG_MAX is missing, or something like that.
On Cygwin64 it seems that longs are 8 by
On 08/04/2014 00:14, Bill Hart wrote:
> On Cygwin64 intmax_t should be long long. Anyway, we can compile those
> guards and see which is evaluating incorrectly. Possibly some header
> defining LLONG_MAX is missing, or something like that.
On Cygwin64 it seems that longs are 8 bytes. So we have an
On 08/04/2014 00:03, Bill Hart wrote:
> Sounds about right to me. C/C++ never did decide whether the language
> had a nominative type system or not.
> Last night I wrote some C++. It complained that I didn't have an
> overload for int, so I added one. Later in an almost identical
> situation, I ad
On Cygwin64 intmax_t should be long long. Anyway, we can compile those
guards and see which is evaluating incorrectly. Possibly some header
defining LLONG_MAX is missing, or something like that.
Bill.
On 8 April 2014 02:06, Brian Gladman wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 00:40, Brian Gladman wrote:
> > O
On 08/04/2014 00:40, Brian Gladman wrote:
> On 07/04/2014 23:02, Bill Hart wrote:
>> Argh, I hate C++. What a useless language.
>
> When we attempt to overload (u)intmax_t types, won't we inevitably be
> duplicating overloads of either long or long long types?
>
> I am no expert on C++ overloadin
Sounds about right to me. C/C++ never did decide whether the language had a
nominative type system or not.
Last night I wrote some C++. It complained that I didn't have an overload
for int, so I added one. Later in an almost identical situation, I added
one for int and it complained that there was
On 07/04/2014 23:02, Bill Hart wrote:
> Argh, I hate C++. What a useless language.
When we attempt to overload (u)intmax_t types, won't we inevitably be
duplicating overloads of either long or long long types?
I am no expert on C++ overloading but aren't overloads on type aliases
illegal?
Bri
Argh, I hate C++. What a useless language.
On 7 April 2014 23:37, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I get the following error when building PPL on top of MPIR 2.7.0.alpha4 on
> Cygwin64:
> /home/jp/sage.git/local/include/gmpxx.h:1548:3: error:
> '__gmp_expr<__mpz_struct [1], __mpz_struct
Dear all,
I get the following error when building PPL on top of MPIR 2.7.0.alpha4 on
Cygwin64:
/home/jp/sage.git/local/include/gmpxx.h:1548:3: error:
'__gmp_expr<__mpz_struct [1], __mpz_struct [1]>::__gmp_expr(intmax_t)'
cannot be overloaded
__gmp_expr(intmax_t l) { mpz_init_set_sx(mp, l); }
On 07/04/2014 15:35, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:31:31 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
[snip]
> And from Brian of course as he surely knows windows and yasm better than
> I do.
Hi Jean-Pierre,
I don't think I do since I only use it with MPIR in a Visual Studio
conte
On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:35:47 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Just checking: everything is ok for now though, right?
>
Sure everything is fine.
I was mostly trying to understand why it was :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"mpir-devel" group.
T
Just checking: everything is ok for now though, right?
I mean, the static lib passed on Cygwin64 for me after the latest fix.
Bill.
On 7 April 2014 16:31, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:27:32 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> I actually don't think I had problems on
On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:31:31 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:27:32 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>>
>> I actually don't think I had problems on MinGW64 either. But I'd have to
>> check to be sure.
>>
>> The problem with using the other kind of magic is old
On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:27:32 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> I actually don't think I had problems on MinGW64 either. But I'd have to
> check to be sure.
>
> The problem with using the other kind of magic is old versions of Cygwin
> which don't support it. I don't know if these exist or not.
I actually don't think I had problems on MinGW64 either. But I'd have to
check to be sure.
The problem with using the other kind of magic is old versions of Cygwin
which don't support it. I don't know if these exist or not. And whether
they build MPIR anyway is entirely another consideration.
I t
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:18:40 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 6:09:07 PM UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 11:34:30 AM UTC+2, leif wrote:
>>>
>>> Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:47:30
17 matches
Mail list logo
