> BTW, I can confirm that the latest official MKL does not work with
> numpy, as it is explained on the Intel forum
> (http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-math-kernel-library/topic/60460).
> I get the i_free not defined issue.
For those who run into this issue, you have to use MKL 10.0.2
A Monday 29 September 2008, Anne Archibald escrigué:
> 2008/9/29 Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > But I agree with Robert Kern that tests *should* never be run under
> > -OO because they are *tests*, not production code, and using the
> > -OO for running the test units is simply a wrong prac
2008/9/29 Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But I agree with Robert Kern that tests *should* never be run under -OO
> because they are *tests*, not production code, and using the -OO for
> running the test units is simply a wrong practice.
I have to disagree with this. What if some piece of c
A Monday 29 September 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Francesc Alted
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > A Monday 29 September 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kern
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > On Mon
A Monday 29 September 2008, Robert Kern escrigué:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 13:43, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Plain assert clauses used to be the most common way to check for
> > test units in the original "unittest" module. Later on, the
> > authors started to introduce things
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> A Monday 29 September 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:40, Charles R Harris
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 13:43, Francesc Alted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Plain assert clauses used to be the most common way to check for test
> units in the original "unittest" module. Later on, the authors started
> to introduce things like self.assert_() and family and warned that the
> use
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 13:22, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 13:07, Charles R Harris
> >>
A Monday 29 September 2008, Charles R Harris escrigué:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:40, Charles R Harris
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Robert Kern
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 13:22, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 13:07, Charles R Harris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 13:07, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:40, Charles R Harris
> >>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 13:07, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:40, Charles R Harris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:40, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:30, Charles R Harris
> >>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:40, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:30, Charles R Harris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:40:26 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
[clip]
> Let's put it this way, if the tests were consistent with assert then
> they couldn't be run with the -OO option. If they *can* be run with the
> -OO option then they had better run correctly.
Perhaps the Nose author would have input
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:30, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:23, Charles R Harris
> >>
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:30, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:23, Charles R Harris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:23, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:05:09 -0600, Charles R Harri
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:23, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:05:09 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> [clip: assert in tests]
>> > Using assert for this sort of thing is a bug, a
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:05:09 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> [clip: assert in tests]
> > Using assert for this sort of thing is a bug, assert goes away with the
> > -OO options. This needs to be fixed.
>
> "assert FOO" is
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:05, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Matthieu Brucher
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've tested the latest Numpy on a RHEL 4, a
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:05:09 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
[clip: assert in tests]
> Using assert for this sort of thing is a bug, assert goes away with the
> -OO options. This needs to be fixed.
"assert FOO" is used in quite many of Numpy's test cases, and it appears
Nose endorses using assert (an
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:05, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Matthieu Brucher
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I've tested the latest Numpy on a RHEL 4, and I got this result :
>>
>> Running unit tests for numpy
>> NumPy version 1.2.0
>> NumPy
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Matthieu Brucher <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've tested the latest Numpy on a RHEL 4, and I got this result :
>
> Running unit tests for numpy
> NumPy version 1.2.0
> NumPy is installed in /.../BRUCHER/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/numpy
> Python version 2.5
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:33:32 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
> 2008/9/29 Pauli Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:07:53 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
>>
>>> np.log(-1 + 0j)
3.1415926535897931j
>>> np.log(-1 - 1e-99j)
-3.1415926535897931j
>>> np.log(-1 + 1e-99j)
2008/9/29 Pauli Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:07:53 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
>
>> np.log(-1 + 0j)
>>> 3.1415926535897931j
>> np.log(-1 - 1e-99j)
>>> -3.1415926535897931j
>> np.log(-1 + 1e-99j)
>>> 3.1415926535897931j
>>>
>>> I'd guess this is typically harmle
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:07:53 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
> np.log(-1 + 0j)
>> 3.1415926535897931j
> np.log(-1 - 1e-99j)
>> -3.1415926535897931j
> np.log(-1 + 1e-99j)
>> 3.1415926535897931j
>>
>> I'd guess this is typically harmless, but may lead to problems if your
>> code relies on th
np.log(-1 + 0j)
> 3.1415926535897931j
np.log(-1 - 1e-99j)
> -3.1415926535897931j
np.log(-1 + 1e-99j)
> 3.1415926535897931j
>
> I'd guess this is typically harmless, but may lead to problems if your
> code relies on the choice of branch at the branch cut.
>
> Could you check if this i
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:19:10 +0900, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 10:00 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
>> I've tested the latest Numpy on a RHEL 4, and I got this result :
>>
>>
> Hi Matthieu,
>
> Are you on 32 or 64 bits ? As you can see, those errors are test
> errors, no
2008/9/29 David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 10:21 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
>>
>> Hi, I compiled Python with a 64bits compiler (icc 10.1.018) as well as
>> Numpy (that reminds me that I should link against the MKL as well). I
>> know it's only tolerance errors, but
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 10:21 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
>
> Hi, I compiled Python with a 64bits compiler (icc 10.1.018) as well as
> Numpy (that reminds me that I should link against the MKL as well). I
> know it's only tolerance errors, but they still show up ;)
Did you compile with the -fast
2008/9/29 David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 10:00 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
>> I've tested the latest Numpy on a RHEL 4, and I got this result :
>>
>
> Hi Matthieu,
>
>Are you on 32 or 64 bits ? As you can see, those errors are test
> errors, not errors in t
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 10:00 +0200, Matthieu Brucher wrote:
> I've tested the latest Numpy on a RHEL 4, and I got this result :
>
Hi Matthieu,
Are you on 32 or 64 bits ? As you can see, those errors are test
errors, not errors in the function themselves (tolerance too low; maybe
influence
I've tested the latest Numpy on a RHEL 4, and I got this result :
Running unit tests for numpy
NumPy version 1.2.0
NumPy is installed in /.../BRUCHER/local/lib/python2.5/site-packages/numpy
Python version 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Sep 29 2008, 09:47:20) [GCC Intel(R)
C++ gcc 3.4 mode]
nose version 0.10.3
Thomas Heller wrote:
>
> No, it isn't complicated. I searched a little about command line options,
> and didn't find any. But 7-zip did unpack the installers. I can live with
> that.
I will look into adding a command line switch. I don't want to add a
GUI, but adding some command line switches
David Cournapeau schrieb:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>>
>> Well, the first question is: What does happen when I install the SSE3
>> version
>> (or how it's called) on my machine, use py2exe to build an app, and this
>> app runs on a SSE2 machine - degraded performance, or hard crashes?
>
> Hard cras
Thomas Heller wrote:
>
> Well, the first question is: What does happen when I install the SSE3 version
> (or how it's called) on my machine, use py2exe to build an app, and this
> app runs on a SSE2 machine - degraded performance, or hard crashes?
Hard crash. That's the whole point of the install
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Thomas]
> >> If I now build applications using numpy with py2exe for distribution,
> >> what will happen on the target computers if the components are not
> 'right'
> >> for the actual machine type?
>
> [David]
> > Note
[Thomas]
>> If I now build applications using numpy with py2exe for distribution,
>> what will happen on the target computers if the components are not 'right'
>> for the actual machine type?
[David]
> Note that the superpack is actually quite primitive: it is a nsis
> installer which encompasses
Thomas Heller wrote:
>
> I see that the windows installer is now a superkac installer,
> which AFAIU selects the 'right' components for the target computer
> at install time.
Yes, it is the case since 1.1.0. It is not ideal, but it effectively
solved a common problem of people not having the right
Jarrod Millman schrieb:
> I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.2.0.
>
I see that the windows installer is now a superkac installer,
which AFAIU selects the 'right' components for the target computer
at install time.
If I now build applications using numpy with py2exe for distribution,
Jarrod Millman wrote:
> For information, please see the release notes:
> http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?group_id=1369&release_id=628858
>
> You can download the release from here:
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=1369&package_id=175103
Note that updated package
I'm pleased to announce the release of NumPy 1.2.0.
NumPy is the fundamental package needed for scientific computing with
Python. It contains:
* a powerful N-dimensional array object
* sophisticated (broadcasting) functions
* basic linear algebra functions
* basic Fourier transforms
* sophi
43 matches
Mail list logo
