[sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

On 2012-06-08, William Stein wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote: >> >> On Jun 7, 2012, at 16:19 , William Stein wrote: >> >>> Hi Sage-Devel, >>> >>> I'm randomly running into segfaults when multiplying matrices over the >>> integers, in the course of doing basic modu

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > For the record, I didn't get any segfaults when running > > for i in `seq 0 1000` ; do sage -c 'print > ModularSymbols(389,sign=0).cuspidal_submodule().decomposition()[0]' ; done > > on sage-5.1.beta2 and Fedora 17. It could be an OS X thing.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

On Friday, June 8, 2012 11:54:58 AM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote: > > For the record, I didn't get any segfaults when running > > for i in `seq 0 1000` ; do sage -c 'print > ModularSymbols(389,sign=0).cuspidal_submodule().decomposition()[0]' ; done > > on sage-5.1.beta2 and Fedora 17. > > I just ran

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

For the record, I didn't get any segfaults when running for i in `seq 0 1000` ; do sage -c 'print ModularSymbols(389,sign=0).cuspidal_submodule().decomposition()[0]' ; done on sage-5.1.beta2 and Fedora 17. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Nils Bruin wrote: > On Jun 7, 4:19 pm, William Stein wrote: >> Hi Sage-Devel, >> >> I'm randomly running into segfaults when multiplying matrices over the >> integers, in the course of doing basic modular symbols calculations. >> For example, sometimes (but not alw

[sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0 serious bug: segfaults in basic linear algebra?

On Jun 7, 4:19 pm, William Stein wrote: > Hi Sage-Devel, > > I'm randomly running into segfaults when multiplying matrices over the > integers, in the course of doing basic modular symbols calculations. > For example, sometimes (but not always), this crashes: > > sage: M = ModularSymbols(389,sign=

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le dimanche 27 mai, Dima Pasechnik a écrit: > Great! So this has to get into our ECL spkg... Yes, but first it should get proper testing, see : http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12586 Snark -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this g

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

On 2012-05-27, Julien Puydt wrote: > Le dimanche 27 mai, Juanjo a écrit: >> A patch has been uploaded to ECL's bug tracker. Please report whether >> it works for you. > > I see the message about it in the bug tracker, but no file is > attached. > I see that this is the patch, http://sourceforge.n

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le samedi 26 mai, Dima Pasechnik a écrit: > On 2012-05-26, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Le dimanche 20 mai, Julien Puydt a écrit: > >> sage -t --long -force_lib > >> devel/sage/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py > >> ** > >> File > >>

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

On 2012-05-26, Julien Puydt wrote: > Le dimanche 20 mai, Julien Puydt a écrit: >> sage -t --long -force_lib >> devel/sage/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py >> ** >> File >> "/home/jpuydt/sage-5.0/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

Dima Pasechnik writes: > On 2012-05-25, mmarco wrote: >> >> That's what i meant. What i wanted to ask is if the ubuntu chroot >> method will also be officially supported. > > For this one needs hardware that can test of such a setup > in a reliable automated way. > I have no idea how Android dev

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-05-25, mmarco wrote: > > That's what i meant. What i wanted to ask is if the ubuntu chroot > method will also be officially supported. For this one needs hardware that can test of such a setup in a reliable automated way. I have no idea how Android developers do testing --- I presume the

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

That's what i meant. What i wanted to ask is if the ubuntu chroot method will also be officially supported. On 25 mayo, 17:21, William Stein wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:45 AM, mmarco wrote: > > >>  Let's make ARM an officially supported platform for > >> Sage! > > > Does that include andr

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:45 AM, mmarco wrote: > > >>  Let's make ARM an officially supported platform for >> Sage! >> > > > Does that include android? For now, I think it means Ubuntu on ARM, which includes Android in the sense of using a chroot install of Ubuntu. I don't know if building Sage

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

> Let's make ARM an officially supported platform for > Sage! > Does that include android? -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at ht

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Dima Pasechnik > Sure, I (perhaps with Keshav as a backup --- Keshav, would you mind > helping?) can do the admin. > I suppose 10 hours is still acceptable  for a build (I expect it actually be > quicker with a HD, > as the solid state drive in my AC100 is kind of s

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

On Thursday, 24 May 2012 16:56:39 UTC+2, Snark wrote: > > Le mercredi 23 mai, mmarco a écrit: > > I did build the chroot image, but when i test it sage fails at startup > > because gap cannot load several packages. It seems that they are not > > installed. I suspect that those packages are mis

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

I am uploading now a tarball with the necesary files to run sage on rooted android devices. Uploading should finish in a few minutes. Please test it if you have another device. In order to run it you need: -an android device with 3.5gb of disk space available (in principle, it should be posible to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le mercredi 23 mai, mmarco a écrit: > I did build the chroot image, but when i test it sage fails at startup > because gap cannot load several packages. It seems that they are not > installed. I suspect that those packages are missing. Does the tarball > that you uploaded work for you on its own?

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

I did build the chroot image, but when i test it sage fails at startup because gap cannot load several packages. It seems that they are not installed. I suspect that those packages are missing. Does the tarball that you uploaded work for you on its own? -- To post to this group, send an email to

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le mardi 22 mai, Julien Puydt a écrit: > http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/jpuydt/sage-5.0-armv7l-Linux.tar.bz2 I forgot : $ md5sum sage-5.0-armv7l-Linux.tar.bz2 ad53951e62c802071844f9bc6d5763d8 sage-5.0-armv7l-Linux.tar.bz2 if you don't get the same, perhaps the upload isn't finished yet (

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le lundi 21 mai, mmarco a écrit: > I am a bit busy now, but if you pass me a tarball with the compiled > sage directory in it i can try to create a chroot environment to be > run in (rooted) android devices. Sorry it took so long -- apparently I've been slow to ask for an account :-P : http://box

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Dear William, > please provide Mr. Snark with an account on boxen! Mr. Snark -- please write to me offlist at wst...@gmail.com. > Thanks, > Dima > > > On Monday, 21 May 2012 18:11:36 UTC+2, Snark wrote: >> >> Le lundi 21 mai, mmarco a écr

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Dear William, please provide Mr. Snark with an account on boxen! Thanks, Dima On Monday, 21 May 2012 18:11:36 UTC+2, Snark wrote: > > Le lundi 21 mai, mmarco a écrit: > > I am a bit busy now, but if you pass me a tarball with the compiled > > sage directory in it i can try to create a chroot en

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le lundi 21 mai, mmarco a écrit: > I am a bit busy now, but if you pass me a tarball with the compiled > sage directory in it i can try to create a chroot environment to be > run in (rooted) android devices. I'm running a "./sage -bdist 5.0" right now for you :-) The question is where I'll put th

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

I am a bit busy now, but if you pass me a tarball with the compiled sage directory in it i can try to create a chroot environment to be run in (rooted) android devices. William Stein told recentely that he could buy an arm buildbot, adding then arm to the list of supported architectures. Do you pe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Le dimanche 20 mai, mmarco a écrit: > Which OS did you build it in? Ubuntu 12.04 armhf. Snark on #sagemath -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit thi

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0 on ARM

Which OS did you build it in? -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.o

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

Le Thu, 10 May 2012 22:37:15 -0700 (PDT), P Purkayastha a écrit : > On Friday, May 11, 2012 1:19:04 AM UTC+8, Snark wrote: > > > > > > 2) I understand the convenience of being able to install sage > > with minimum requirements in restricted cases, but still don't get > > why such a nice endeavou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Friday, May 11, 2012 1:19:04 AM UTC+8, Snark wrote: > > > 2) I understand the convenience of being able to install sage > with minimum requirements in restricted cases, but still don't get why > such a nice endeavour means all other cases must endure a long > compilation and big installations

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

Le jeudi 10 mai, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit: > On 2012-05-10 14:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > This is a huge overkill, at least on Linux, where gfortran is just > > one call to package manager away > If the user has root access, then yes. 1) There's no need for root access to install a compiler in one

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 12:05:31 UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2012-05-10 14:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > This is a huge overkill, at least on Linux, where gfortran is just one > > call to package manager away > If the user has root access, then yes. > IMHO the top-level README.txt sh

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/10/2012 08:05 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-05-10 14:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: This is a huge overkill, at least on Linux, where gfortran is just one call to package manager away If the user has root access, then yes. Yes. I only needed to install gfortran system-wide to stop gcc f

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-10 14:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > This is a huge overkill, at least on Linux, where gfortran is just one > call to package manager away If the user has root access, then yes. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 11:50:39 UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2012-05-10 12:56, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > it seems to me that missing gfortran alone should not trigger a build of > > the gcc spkg. > Several packages need a Fortran compiler. sure, I am perfectly aware of this... >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-10 12:56, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > it seems to me that missing gfortran alone should not trigger a build of > the gcc spkg. Several packages need a Fortran compiler. So, if gfortran is missing we *must* build GCC. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com T

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 07:42:44 UTC, P Purkayastha wrote: > > On 05/10/2012 03:37 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I see the problem. Originally, Sage (or you) decided to install the GCC > > package within Sage. As a consequence, MPIR was built without the C++ > > interface. From the MPIR lo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/10/2012 03:37 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: I see the problem. Originally, Sage (or you) decided to install the GCC package within Sage. As a consequence, MPIR was built without the C++ interface. From the MPIR log: Building a reduced version of MPIR to bootstrap GCC. MPIR will later get re

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

I see the problem. Originally, Sage (or you) decided to install the GCC package within Sage. As a consequence, MPIR was built without the C++ interface. From the MPIR log: > Building a reduced version of MPIR to bootstrap GCC. > MPIR will later get rebuilt (with the C++ interface and static libr

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/09/2012 11:08 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-05-09 13:06, P Purkayastha wrote: The build log is attached. The problem is actually with MPIR, can you send me the MPIR log file? Hi Jeroen, I am currently not physically near that machine (and I forgot to enable ssh on it since it is

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-09 13:06, P Purkayastha wrote: > The build log is attached. The problem is actually with MPIR, can you send me the MPIR log file? -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/09/2012 05:49 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-05-09 11:45, P Purkayastha wrote: On 05/09/2012 03:57 PM, P Purkayastha wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyermailto:jdeme...@cage.ugent.be>> wrote: On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: > Actually, I alrea

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-09 11:45, P Purkayastha wrote: > On 05/09/2012 03:57 PM, P Purkayastha wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyer > > wrote: >> >> On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: >> > Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the sa

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 05/09/2012 03:57 PM, P Purkayastha wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyer mailto:jdeme...@cage.ugent.be>> wrote: On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: > Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the same way. And without setting any CFLAGS That's what I m

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: > > Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the same way. > And without setting any CFLAGS > That's what I meant. Without having set anything. Just plain "make." -- To post to this group, send

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-09 09:52, P Purkayastha wrote: > Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the same way. And without setting any CFLAGS? -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Fo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

Actually, I already tried that. It fails in the same way. On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-05-09 09:34, P Purkayastha wrote: > > And I set the following CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS (and MAKE is empty): > > || > > ~/Installations/sage-5.0.rc0»exportCFLAGS="-march=native -O3 -pi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 released

On 2012-05-09 09:34, P Purkayastha wrote: > And I set the following CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS (and MAKE is empty): > || > ~/Installations/sage-5.0.rc0»exportCFLAGS="-march=native -O3 -pipe" > ~/Installations/sage-5.0.rc0»exportCXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" What if you don't use -march=native? Could you recompile m

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

> Question: I have an old atom N270 netbook with Linux. Would it be > useful for me to turn this on and put on the internet for sage build > testing? > > -- William I have one of those, and i did compile sage a couple of times there with no problems. It shouldn't be different than any other x86

[sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 on FreeBSD

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:01:09 PM UTC, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > I just built sage-5.0.rc0 on FreeBSD. When I do make test, one of the > test failures is puzzling me: > > sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage/sage/tests/startup.py" >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-05-02 18:50, William Stein wrote: > Question: I have an old atom N270 netbook with Linux. Would it be > useful for me to turn this on and put on the internet for sage build > testing? Just do it, so I can play with it :-) -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups

[sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.rc0 on FreeBSD

On May 2, 12:01 pm, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > I just built sage-5.0.rc0 on FreeBSD.  When I do make test, one of the > test failures is puzzling me: > > sage -t  -force_lib "devel/sage/sage/tests/startup.py" > ** > File

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-05-01 17:38, William Stein wrote: >> Thanks for researching this!  So I could buy a Trim-Slice H250 for >> about $350, get a name assigned to it (trim.math.washington.edu)? and >> put it in our server room.  But it will take 10 hours

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

On 2012-05-01 00:08, Volker Braun wrote: > (like, do binutils support SSE4?) MPIR does this. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-05-01 17:38, William Stein wrote: > Thanks for researching this! So I could buy a Trim-Slice H250 for > about $350, get a name assigned to it (trim.math.washington.edu)? and > put it in our server room. But it will take 10 hours to build sage. 10 hours isn't so bad. We already have 3 bui

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

Le mardi 01 mai, Dima Pasechnik a écrit: > I suppose 10 hours is still acceptable for a build (I expect it > actually be quicker with a HD, > as the solid state drive in my AC100 is kind of slow, and might take > a lot of wallclock time > during the build). More memory will also shorten the build

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:38:26 PM UTC, William wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >>> On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-04-2

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>> On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote: > Will some day ARM be one of the platforms of

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote: Will some day ARM be one of the platforms oficially supported? >>> I guess a platform can only be truly off

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Autoconf-style tests would be nice but I think it'll be painful to write tests for obscure asm issues (like, do binutils support SSE4?). Or compliler releases that die in an ICE after compiling pari for a while. Maybe we should have a combination of both, first autoconf tests and then supplemen

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

On 30 April 2012 16:23, Volker Braun wrote: > Essentially by maintaining a list of gcc versions / architectures that work > well enough with reduced optimizations, and that are hopelessly broken. This > can just be some shell script that shitlists specific compilers... A problem with that approac

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

On 2012-04-30 22:39, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > But perhaps an option to use a more > generic set of instructions would be nice. To me, it just shows we really need to implement good default CFLAGS instead of stupidly using -march=native as in the ECM spkg. > It would mean its possible to > distrib

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

On 04/30/12 03:45 AM, leif wrote: On Apr 29, 9:23 pm, Volker Braun wrote: Its pretty clear that this version does not support SSE4. ... and, frankly speaking, one shouldn't be surprised that Sage doesn't support ancient Linux distros, at least not out-of-the-box. There are a couple of ways t

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

Compiling sage in my tablet was so slow that i even considered emulating an arm system through qemu as an alternative (although it would probably be even slower, a pc is better suited for long and intensive cpu usage than an android device). Regarding the OS for a buildbot, i would really apreciat

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote: >>> Will some day ARM be one of the platforms oficially supported? >> I guess a platform can only be truly officially supported if there is a >> buildbot for it.  If

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Essentially by maintaining a list of gcc versions / architectures that work well enough with reduced optimizations, and that are hopelessly broken. This can just be some shell script that shitlists specific compilers... On Monday, April 30, 2012 10:41:11 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-04-29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote: >> Will some day ARM be one of the platforms oficially supported? > I guess a platform can only be truly officially supported if there is a > buildbot for it. If we don't test on ARM, sooner or later something > will break.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

On 2012-04-30 16:36, Volker Braun wrote: > Given that compiler optimizations are likely to use new additions to the > ISA, I propose that our strategy for deciding whether or not to build > gcc should be: > > 1) use OS provided gcc if it works fine (of course) > > 2) build our own gcc on OSX (ver

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Given that compiler optimizations are likely to use new additions to the ISA, I propose that our strategy for deciding whether or not to build gcc should be: 1) use OS provided gcc if it works fine (of course) 2) build our own gcc on OSX (very popular and hopelessly broken, but at least we kno

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Hi, gcc was installed by Sage. You can find the install log here - http://www.imsc.res.in/~rajeev/install.log Rajeev On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > Did your compilation build the bundled gcc or did it use the system gcc? For > example, is there a $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/gcc in

[sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

On Apr 29, 9:23 pm, Volker Braun wrote: > Its pretty clear that this version does not support SSE4. ... and, frankly speaking, one shouldn't be surprised that Sage doesn't support ancient Linux distros, at least not out-of-the-box. There are a couple of ways to fix / work around this, e.g.: -

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Did your compilation build the bundled gcc or did it use the system gcc? For example, is there a $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/gcc in your incomplete compile? If you can, post the whole log e.g. to pastebin. On Sunday, April 29, 2012 2:07:53 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote: > > Hi, > > Here's the assembler's info

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Its pretty clear that this version does not support SSE4. On Sunday, April 29, 2012 2:07:53 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote: > > Hi, > > Here's the assembler's info - > > $ as --version > GNU assembler 2.16.91.0.5 20051219 (SUSE Linux) > Copyright 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > This program

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Hi, Here's the assembler's info - $ as --version GNU assembler 2.16.91.0.5 20051219 (SUSE Linux) Copyright 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License. This program has absolutely no warranty. This a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Seems like you have outdated binutils, the assembler doesn't understand the gcc output. What is the output of "as --version"? On Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:58:48 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote: > > Hi, > > I get the same error. I used the following commands - > > $ pwd > /home/rajeev/bin/sage-5.0.bet

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Hi, I get the same error. I used the following commands - $ pwd /home/rajeev/bin/sage-5.0.beta14 $ ./sage -f http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/leif/Sage/spkgs/ecm-6.3.p7.spkg Rajeev On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Volker Braun wrote: > Can you try this version: > > http://trac.sagemath

[sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.beta14 : Error building GMP-ECM

Can you try this version: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12830 On Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:41:06 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote: > > Hi, > > I got the following error while compiling sage-5.0.beta14. I had got > the same error with sage-5.0.beta13 which I reported earlier. > > > libtool: c

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-04-28 20:44, mmarco wrote: > Will some day ARM be one of the platforms oficially supported? I guess a platform can only be truly officially supported if there is a buildbot for it. If we don't test on ARM, sooner or later something will break. -- To post to this group, send an email to s

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

Will some day ARM be one of the platforms oficially supported? -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

Le samedi 28 avril, Dima Pasechnik a écrit: > On 2012-04-28, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > here is a new report on the status of sage on ARM (ubuntu) : I just > > got a successful build of 5.0.beta14 -- no patch, no special spkg, > > just the bare, unadorned, ugly-as-can-be 5.0.beta14. > > >

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.0.beta14 and ARM(ubuntu)

On 2012-04-28, Julien Puydt wrote: > Hi, > > here is a new report on the status of sage on ARM (ubuntu) : I just got > a successful build of 5.0.beta14 -- no patch, no special spkg, just the > bare, unadorned, ugly-as-can-be 5.0.beta14. > > So 5.0.beta14 will stay in History as the first sage vers

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM, David Roe wrote: >> As for why your viewpoint might be harmful: I have heard anecdotes of >> people >> not wanting to release their code because it was ugly, or nonstandard, or >> difficult to use, etc. As long as the response that they are going to >> receive >> i

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:08, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >>> Can we get Lion on bsd.math.washington.edu ? >> >> I could, but then we will no longer have a 10.6 build/test machine, I >> think,

[sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> Can we get Lion on bsd.math.washington.edu ? > > I could, but then we will no longer have a 10.6 build/test machine, I > think, and that would be bad. > Also, I can't do this until next wee

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Can we get Lion on bsd.math.washington.edu ? I could, but then we will no longer have a 10.6 build/test machine, I think, and that would be bad. Also, I can't do this until next week, since I'm in San Diego right now. > sqrt5 is down again

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

Can we get Lion on bsd.math.washington.edu ? sqrt5 is down again... Dima -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

I agree of course that we should converse in a civil manner. On Friday, February 3, 2012 10:39:45 PM UTC-8, Jonathan Bober wrote: > > In general, person X might use nonstandard GNU extension Y for many > reasons, > In my experience, it usually boils down to 5) Person used language extension wi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

Le 04/02/2012 07:39, Jonathan Bober a écrit : For another example: I recently tried to compile some of my own code using clang++ and discovered that I am not allowed to do void f(int j) { complex x[j]; [...] } even though g++ accepts that. ( See http://clang.llvm.org/compatibility.htm

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

> > As for why your viewpoint might be harmful: I have heard anecdotes of > people > not wanting to release their code because it was ugly, or nonstandard, or > difficult to use, etc. As long as the response that they are going to > receive > it along the lines of the above, that viewpoint is valid

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > But it makes the code unportable. What hope do we have with the Sun/Oracle > compiler if idiots use non-standard C? What hope do we have if we try to > build on Windows at some point in the future using a native compiler? All > these GNU

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Friday, February 3, 2012 8:33:53 AM UTC-8, William wrote: > > > Just to clarify, does gcc-4.2 *not* come with the latex XCode 4.x, but > it came with earlier XCode 4.x's?I have gcc-4.2 on my laptop, and > I've never installed anything but XCode 4.x on it. > > Just curious. > I think that

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, John H Palmieri wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Feb 1, 2012, at 04:46 , Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:01:41 AM UTC+8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri wrote: [snip] >> I've started looking into the difficulties of getting sage to build >> with clang (on lion), and hav

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 04:46, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:01:41 AM UTC+8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:01:41 AM UTC+8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein > wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 1

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 14:13, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri >> wrote: >> > >> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 15:52, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > On 01/31/12 09:20 PM, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:13, Volker Braun  wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: (Beyond the issue of fortran) I'm not sure if

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On 01/31/12 09:20 PM, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:13, Volker Braun wrote: On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: (Beyond the issue of fortran) I'm not sure if it will be possible to build all of the sage libraries with clang. For instance,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

What I'm trying to say is: Upstream needs to be informed that they shouldn't use non-standard C extensions. Nested functions especially are a bad design choice in a world that is moving away from executable stacks. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubs

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-5.0.x and OS X 10.7 Lion

On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein > wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 16,

  1   2   >