I think I have realised that it is ok for us to distribute GPL code,
so long as it is not included as part of the library itself when
built. After all, some of the demos are GPL.
Bill.
2009/4/9 Jason Moxham :
>
>
> Because of the license issue , I deleted it , it was a very poor hack anyway ,
>
Because of the license issue , I deleted it , it was a very poor hack anyway ,
I can put it back if you want , there is a very small Makefile.am change
On Thursday 09 April 2009 09:40:55 Bill Hart wrote:
> Jason,
>
> for some reason the bench directory doesn't seem to have made it into
> trunk
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
On Monday 23 March 2009 16:45:53 Bill Hart wrote:
> 2009/3/23 Jason Moxham :
> > MPFR is based on mpn and mpz , not mpf .
>
> OK, I didn't seem to know that. I probably should have though.
>
> > I suppose we get remove mpf from the default MPIR build , and only build
> > mpf if we configure with -
2009/3/23 Jason Moxham :
>
>
> MPFR is based on mpn and mpz , not mpf .
OK, I didn't seem to know that. I probably should have though.
>
> I suppose we get remove mpf from the default MPIR build , and only build mpf
> if we configure with --enable-gmp-compat which could switch on all the other
MPFR is based on mpn and mpz , not mpf .
I suppose we get remove mpf from the default MPIR build , and only build mpf
if we configure with --enable-gmp-compat which could switch on all the other
old stuff we would like to remove.
On Monday 23 March 2009 16:18:56 Bill Hart wrote:
> Hi Mariah
Hi Mariah,
This would make MPIR unusable in Sage as a drop in replacement for
GMP, and it would prevent people from using MPIR instead of GMP as a
base for MPFR.
However, if MPFR becomes independent of the mpf layer in GMP, as I
suspect it may in the future, then it is a possibility worth
consid
Bill,
As a suggestion on something that could be removed from
MPIR, had you considered removing the mpf code? I was
under the impression that MPIR was going to concentrate on
multiple-precision integers and rationals, and
leave multiple-precision floating-point to MPFR.
Mariah
On Mar 20, 11:30
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> I suppose it's just aggregation.
>
> Maybe we need to get rid of the bit that says, "overall licensed
> LGPL". Is that still permitted, when some component of the distro is
> GPL?
Sounds like a good idea.
> Actually the reason for me wantin
I suppose it's just aggregation.
Maybe we need to get rid of the bit that says, "overall licensed
LGPL". Is that still permitted, when some component of the distro is
GPL?
Actually the reason for me wanting to perhaps get rid of the demos was
more to do with the fact that I don't know anyone who
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> Well we'll eventually replace with our own. Some of the demos are
> actually GPL as well. We should dump those too.
Why? Only the parts that are linked with applications need to be LGPL.
As long as those files/directories are clearly marked
Well we'll eventually replace with our own. Some of the demos are
actually GPL as well. We should dump those too.
Bill.
2009/3/20 Jason Moxham :
>
> On Friday 20 March 2009 17:03:37 Bill Hart wrote:
>> We'll have to remember to remove it from there when issuing a release,
>> as it is GPL not LGP
On Friday 20 March 2009 17:03:37 Bill Hart wrote:
> We'll have to remember to remove it from there when issuing a release,
> as it is GPL not LGPL.
Whoops , didn't know , we should dump it then , or replace with our own bench
>
> Bill.
>
> 2009/3/20 Jason Moxham :
> > I've put mpirbench in a ne
We'll have to remember to remove it from there when issuing a release,
as it is GPL not LGPL.
Bill.
2009/3/20 Jason Moxham :
>
> I've put mpirbench in a new directory called bench in the trunk svn so we can
> do
> cd bench
> make bench
> to run the benchmark on the just built lib
> it's a bit o
17 matches
Mail list logo
