On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:31 AM, tkeller wrote:
>
> Rebuilt 3.0.5 and didn't have any issues this time.
> Cycle counter gave (1.68e+09) this time around and zn_poly built in
> about 2 minutes or so.
> I also rebuilt 3.0.3 and likewise didn't have any problems.
> Sorry for the phantom bug report.
I
Rebuilt 3.0.5 and didn't have any issues this time.
Cycle counter gave (1.68e+09) this time around and zn_poly built in
about 2 minutes or so.
I also rebuilt 3.0.3 and likewise didn't have any problems.
Sorry for the phantom bug report.
Thomas
On Jul 17, 6:36 am, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:54 PM, tkeller wrote:
> I may have been imprecise. To clarify, zn_poly built, then displayed
> this message:
> Calibrating cycle counter... ok (3.84e+18)
Okay, this means that zn_poly thinks your clock speed is around 3.84
billion GHz. (Yes, 3.84 * 10^18 cycles per seco
Sage 3.0.3 definitely built from source for me 3ish weeks ago. I've
applied suggested Debian/Ubuntu updates since then (nothing too
radical sticks out) , but I'll trying rebuilding 3.0.3 tomorrow
morning. Thanks much for your responses.
Regards,
Thomas
On Jul 16, 10:59 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROT
On Jul 16, 8:54 pm, tkeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
> I may have been imprecise. To clarify, zn_poly built, then displayed
> this message:
> Calibrating cycle counter... ok (3.84e+18)
> KS mul: ...
> KS sqr: ...
> Nussbaumer m
I may have been imprecise. To clarify, zn_poly built, then displayed
this message:
Calibrating cycle counter... ok (3.84e+18)
KS mul: ...
KS sqr: ...
Nussbaumer mul: ...
Nussbaumer sqr:
On Jul 16, 8:39 pm, tkeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> The last build I built from source (3.0.3) took ~ 3 hours total on my
> average dell laptop (running kubuntu 8.0.4.1). Building 3.0.5 is
> ongoing, but has spent the last 5+ hours on "zn_poly tuning program."
> Is this normal? It ha
