Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 8.0 Build Error on MacOS, [mpir-3.0.0.p0] Error building MPIR.

Can we have a bit more of that log? I would like to see the full command. François > On 30/07/2017, at 12:04, Michael Frey wrote: > > I tried AS_INTEGRATED_ASSEMBLER=1 make without success, I also tried adding > it to my environment and also from the debugging shell. > > I

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 8.0 Build Error on MacOS, [mpir-3.0.0.p0] Error building MPIR.

I tried AS_INTEGRATED_ASSEMBLER=1 make without success, I also tried adding it to my environment and also from the debugging shell. I also tried: export CFLAGS="-Wa,-q $CFLAGS" without success. The make ends with: vscanf.o scanf/.libs/vsscanf.o -L/Users/michael/sage-8.0/local/lib -m64 -O2

[sage-devel] Followups to finite-field-element GAP-to-Sage conversion bug

Continuing the discussion from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23153, there are a couple of directions to discuss: - Do we want to remove the LogFFE and replace it with an implementation that rewrites the element as a polynomial over the primitive root? - Do we want to add support for

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 8.0 Build Error on MacOS, [mpir-3.0.0.p0] Error building MPIR.

I made https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23549 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group,

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 8.0 Build Error on MacOS, [mpir-3.0.0.p0] Error building MPIR.

Can you try building sage with AS_INTEGRATED_ASSEMBLER=1 make On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 4:53:40 PM UTC+2, Michael Frey wrote: > > I found this thread on the MPIR issues list: > https://github.com/wbhart/mpir/issues/217 > > It appears that the MacOS assembler is old. Is there to

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 8.0 Build Error on MacOS, [mpir-3.0.0.p0] Error building MPIR.

I found this thread on the MPIR issues list: https://github.com/wbhart/mpir/issues/217 It appears that the MacOS assembler is old. Is there to configure the sage build as they suggest? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To

[sage-devel] Re: Would it be a good idea to start working on a module on Population Dynamics?

On 2017-07-27, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > I am assuming by "this process" is the Sage peer review. It also does > usually improve the quality of the code and the documentation. +1 > That is precisely what could be a problem. Doing things one-by-one means > you may not see

[sage-devel] Re: Would it be a good idea to start working on a module on Population Dynamics?

On 2017-07-25, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > The code quality is up to the project developers and not the consequence > of the peer review process that we have in Sage. Of course, if the project developers decide on using peer review and unit/doc testing, then they'll

[sage-devel] Re: Ergodic Theory

Hi Marc, On 2017-07-27, Marc Masdeu wrote: > @Simon maybe it would help the OP if you elaborated on why the group > cohomology code was not included in the standard Sage... 1. It depends on an optional package with GPL-compatible licence at build time and on an