Oh that's a different number altogether. We set that number correctly I believe, though a couple of our releases slipped through without the increments. However I added that to the notes on doing a release so it won't happen again.
Bill. 2009/9/8 Jason Moxham <[email protected]>: > > On Tuesday 08 September 2009 00:57:28 Bill Hart wrote: >> 2009/9/7 Jason Moxham <[email protected]>: >> > On Saturday 05 September 2009 16:30:38 Bill Hart wrote: >> >> I'm happy to bump our compatibility number if that is that is required. >> >> However we should be meticulous about ensuring we are compatible with >> >> GMP 4.3.1. In particular we need to ensure we normalise our extended gcd >> >> precisely the same way as them. We should also go through the >> >> documentation and ensure every single function has exactly the same >> >> prototype and definition. >> >> We really need to verify carefully though that this is the problem John >> >> is encountering. >> > >> > A quick look and it appears we are compatible with 4.3.1 , but not 4.4 >> > mpz_inits(....,0) is one function we are missing, can Windows do this >> > sort of function ? >> > Have we verified that changing the version number does fix the gcc >> > problem? >> >> Ah yeah varargs or something. I can't see that being a C99 thing as >> the rest of GMP is not C99. >> >> >> The original intention was to never change the GMP version >> >> fro 4.2.1 because that is the version of GMP which we forked. >> > >> > I would of thought the reason for version numbers is to see wether the >> > lib is compatible with version x.y.z , not which version we forked from , >> > as who would care about that? >> >> That's certainly the main use for version numbers. If people would >> prefer us to update it, I'm happy to. >> >> Does anyone know if there is a "Right Thing To Do". >> > > Apparently the proper way is > > http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_91.html > http://www.linuxshowcase.org/2000/2000papers/papers/browndavid/browndavid_html/ > > but I get the impression that most people rely on the version we set ie 1.2.1 > or gmp's 4.3.1 etc > > > >> >> Bill. >> >> >> >> 2009/9/5 Jason Moxham <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> > On Saturday 05 September 2009 13:05:19 John Cremona wrote: >> >> > > 2009/9/5 Minh Nguyen <[email protected]>: >> >> > > > Hi John, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:31 AM, John >> >> > > > Cremona<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > <SNIP> >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> Now, (1) the installed version of gmp is 4.2.1: >> >> > > >> j...@selmer%grep GMP_VERSION /usr/include/gmp.h >> >> > > >> #define GMP_VERSION "4.2.1" >> >> > > > >> >> > > > One way (at least for me) to debug this problem is to compile Sage >> >> > > > 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.alpha0 on the same machine without GMP installed >> >> > > > system-wide. The system-wide installation of GMP might be done >> >> > > > through, say, a Linux distribution's package manager. After that, >> >> > > > remove the system-wide GMP and proceed with compiling the above >> >> > > > two versions of Sage. I'll try this approach on the Ubuntu 9.04 >> >> > > > machine in my office, and report the results later. >> >> > > >> >> > > I'll have a go, though this would involve disabling/hiding the >> >> > > system gmp, and doesn't gcc use that? This machine is owned by me & >> >> > > Bill Hart (so I would have to ask him before doing that). >> >> > > >> >> > > Here's what happened, in order: >> >> > > 1. Machine installed late July, with ubuntu and gcc-4.3.3. >> >> > > 2. Sage 4.1.1 builds fine with that. >> >> > > 3. Bill finds that 4.3.3 is broken, in that it compilies his correct >> >> > > source code into something which does not run properly (for details, >> >> > > ask Bill). >> >> > > 4. Bill obtains source for gcc-4.4.1, but finds it does not build >> >> > > owing to gmp not being recent enough. >> >> > > 5. John installs latest gmp. >> >> > > 6. Bill successfully builds gcc-4.4.1, which is now the machine's >> >> > >> >> > default. >> >> > >> >> > > 7. John fails to build sage-4.1.2.alpha0. >> >> > > >> >> > > At some point I also installed mpir on this machine. So now we have >> >> > > the following confusing situation: >> >> > > >> >> > > /usr/include/gmp.h is actually mpir 1.2.2 (aliasing gmp 4.2.1) >> >> > > /usr/local/include/gmp.h is gmp 4.3.1 >> >> > >> >> > So does the installation of GCC-4.4 require a GMP >4.3 ? , if so then >> >> > to get >> >> > it to use MPIR all we need to do is bump our gmp compatibility version >> >> > numbers from 4.2.1 to 4.3.1 , assuming we have implemented any new >> >> > documented >> >> > features. >> >> > >> >> > > I don't know where the original system gmp is (or even if there was >> >> > > one) since the only other files o nthe system called gmp.h are in >> >> > > sage-*/local directories. And of course there are various versions >> >> > > of the library in /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib. >> >> > > >> >> > > John >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
