In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:08, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
In gmane.comp.mathematics.sage.devel, you wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote:
Can we get Lion on bsd.math.washington.edu ?
I could, but then we will no longer have a 10.6
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM, David Roe r...@math.harvard.edu 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
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
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com 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.
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) {
complexdouble x[j];
[...]
}
even though g++ accepts that. ( See
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
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, John H Palmieri
jhpalmier...@gmail.com 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 wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On
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 it came
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.netwrote:
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
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, even
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 jhpalm...@gmail.com
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 wst...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 04:46, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com 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 jhpalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William wrote:
On
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 jhpalm...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I've started looking into the difficulties of getting sage to build
with clang (on
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 10:04, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com 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 wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon,
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, it currently
doesn't yet support nested functions, which I know at least ratpoints
uses.
C
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:13, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com 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, it currently
doesn't
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 jhpalm...@gmail.com
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 wst...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
On 01/31/12 09:20 PM, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:13, Volker Braunvbraun.n...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 15:52, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
On 01/31/12 09:20 PM, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 13:13, Volker Braunvbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:01:41 PM UTC-8, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
(Beyond the issue of
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 14:13, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com 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 jhpalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:59:45 PM UTC-8, William 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 wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri jhpalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On
On 2012-01-17 03:24, Dan Drake wrote:
Huh? So I guess running make test doesn't work right in
sage-5.0.beta1 since sage-env is missing (why?).
Is it related to http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11073 ?
Yes, it is. Should be fixed now in the latest version of #11073.
--
To post to
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:42:49 AM UTC-8, William wrote:
Hi,
A major blocker for Sage-5.0 is supporting OS X (version 10.7 -- the
After building Sage on OS X 10.7, make test did this:
For the record, running tests with sage -t devel/sage/sage yields
hundred(s) of failing files:
http://wstein.org/home/wstein/tmp/test-sage-5.0.beta1-osx10.7.txt
It could be that most of these boil down to some code at the core of
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:42:49 AM UTC-8, William wrote:
Hi,
A
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
After building Sage on OS X 10.7, make test did this:
For the record, running tests with sage -t devel/sage/sage yields
hundred(s) of failing files:
http://wstein.org/home/wstein/tmp/test-sage-5.0.beta1-osx10.7.txt
On 17 January 2012 23:04, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
After building Sage on OS X 10.7, make test did this:
For the record, running tests with sage -t devel/sage/sage yields
hundred(s) of failing files:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2012 23:04, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
After building Sage on OS X 10.7, make test did this:
For the record, running
On Jan 17, 2012, at 14:04 , William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
After building Sage on OS X 10.7, make test did this:
Let me run the full test suite of Sage first, having built PARI with
-O0 and see what happens. If that works,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Justin C. Walker jus...@mac.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2012, at 14:04 , William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
After building Sage on OS X 10.7, make test did this:
Let me run the full test suite of Sage
On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:42:49 AM UTC-8, William wrote:
Hi,
A major blocker for Sage-5.0 is supporting OS X (version 10.7 -- the
version that has been out for months now).
Fortunately, it is now relatively easy to build sage-5.0.beta1 on OS
X 10.7 with XCode 4.x, and have it start
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, John H Palmieri jhpalmier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, January 16, 2012 7:42:49 AM UTC-8, William wrote:
Hi,
A major blocker for Sage-5.0 is supporting OS X (version 10.7 -- the
version that has been out for months now).
Fortunately, it is now
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 at 03:43PM -0800, William Stein wrote:
Testing that Sage starts...
[2012-01-16 09:10:19] Sage version 5.0.beta1, released 2012-01-13
Yes, Sage starts.
. local/bin/sage-env sage-maketest
/bin/sh: local/bin/sage-env: No such file or directory
make: *** [test] Error 1
35 matches
Mail list logo
