On Saturday, April 9, 2011 8:11:26 AM UTC-7, Georg S. Weber wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> interesting thread, let me toss in my 2 cents.
>
> There are also Linux distributions which do not have gcc installed by
> default, so users might fall into the "Cython is not usable" trap,
> too.
I just creat
Hi all,
interesting thread, let me toss in my 2 cents.
There are also Linux distributions which do not have gcc installed by
default, so users might fall into the "Cython is not usable" trap,
too. Python, from v2.7 on, has some new module called "sysconfig" (see
http://docs.python.org/dev/library
That's on the current status of Boehm GC support on Apple's llvm-gcc
-- Forwarded message --
From: Asst. Prof. Dmitrii (Dima) Pasechnik
Date: 9 April 2011 12:21
Subject: Fwd: unable to compile GC using Apple's llvm-gcc (from XCode 4)
To: g...@linux.hpl.hp.com
Cc: Marius Schamschul
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> OS X comes with XCode, it's just not installed. It's just XCode 4 that
>>> costs $4.99. However, what happens if people install a
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> OS X comes with XCode, it's just not installed. It's just XCode 4 that
>>> costs $4.99. However, what happens if people install a
On 8 April 2011 21:17, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>> Or are you just arguing that XCode is
>> necessary because it's an easy way to a binary gcc.
>
> I don't know how to install GCC on OS X, except by installing XCode.
> There is a lot more to GCC t
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> OS X comes with XCode, it's just not installed. It's just XCode 4 that
>> costs $4.99. However, what happens if people install a binary gcc?
>
> How?
http://hpc.sourceforge.net/
>
>
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Tim Lahey wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> In order to use Cython on OS X, one currently needs XCode. Cython is
>> a really core feature of Sage.
>> E.g., I talk about it a lot in my Sage course for undergrads [1], and
>> on
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> In order to use Cython on OS X, one currently needs XCode. Cython is
> a really core feature of Sage.
> E.g., I talk about it a lot in my Sage course for undergrads [1], and
> on Wednesday I had some very confused
> students in class that
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:37 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:21 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>> On 7 April 2011 02:52, Felix Lawrence wrote:
>>> For many people, this would make Sage no longer free - it would
>>> effectively cost $5 and none of that money goes to Sage.
>>
>> Well,
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 1:21 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 02:52, Felix Lawrence wrote:
>> For many people, this would make Sage no longer free - it would
>> effectively cost $5 and none of that money goes to Sage.
>
> Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. We can give them a Sage bina
On Apr 9, 12:29 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
> On 04/ 8/11 12:12 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> > I did a quick testing with llvm-gcc (renaming gcc and g++ --- on
> > MacOSX they are just symbolic links anyway)
> > and saw Sage 4.7.alpha3 installation choking on Boehm-GC spkg.
>
> > So this prob
On 04/ 8/11 12:12 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
I did a quick testing with llvm-gcc (renaming gcc and g++ --- on
MacOSX they are just symbolic links anyway)
and saw Sage 4.7.alpha3 installation choking on Boehm-GC spkg.
So this probably means we'd need to upgrade this spkg at least, as it
is a coupl
I did a quick testing with llvm-gcc (renaming gcc and g++ --- on
MacOSX they are just symbolic links anyway)
and saw Sage 4.7.alpha3 installation choking on Boehm-GC spkg.
So this probably means we'd need to upgrade this spkg at least, as it
is a couple of years old
(but it's the latest stable ver
I suspect that part of the cost of Xcode 4 is to do with the accounting
requirements involved in giving away a product free (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime). The next version of OS X will likely
come with Xcode 4. I certainly hope that is the case.
J
--
To post to this group, send
On 7 April 2011 03:15, kcrisman wrote:
>> For many people, this would make Sage no longer free - it would
>> effectively cost $5 and none of that money goes to Sage.
>
> Well, you could still download a binary. They aren't requiring that
> people give them money from things compiled with it, are
On 7 April 2011 02:52, Felix Lawrence wrote:
> On Apr 6, 7:19 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
>> There seems to be a growing body of opinion that Clang
>>
>> http://clang.llvm.org/
>>
>> will replace gcc as the compiler of choice for open-source projects - not
>> just
>> on OS X.
> I've heard this
On Apr 7, 4:15 am, kcrisman wrote:
> > For many people, this would make Sage no longer free - it would
> > effectively cost $5 and none of that money goes to Sage.
>
> Well, you could still download a binary. They aren't requiring that
> people give them money from things compiled with it, are
> For many people, this would make Sage no longer free - it would
> effectively cost $5 and none of that money goes to Sage.
Well, you could still download a binary. They aren't requiring that
people give them money from things compiled with it, are they? But I
agree it's a problem, if true. $5
On Apr 6, 7:19 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> There seems to be a growing body of opinion that Clang
>
> http://clang.llvm.org/
>
> will replace gcc as the compiler of choice for open-source projects - not just
> on OS X.
I've heard this too.
> I also noticed that Xcode is no longer free, though
20 matches
Mail list logo
