On Saturday, 13 October 2012 20:58:46 UTC+8, Georgi Guninski wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 05:45:29AM -0700, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, 13 October 2012 19:26:17 UTC+8, Georgi Guninski wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:17:29AM -0700, kcrisman wrote: > > > > What is the name of the binary (i.e., is it 64 or 32 bit, and so > forth)? > > > > > > > > > > It easy is to check if the problem is in my boxen - install ubuntu > 10.04 > > > in > > > a virtual machine, download the 64 bit binary from sagemath and > > > run the testcases. > > > > > > > > Not all x86_64 boxes are equal. Different models of x86_64 processors > have > > different sets of commands, and VMs are even worse in this case, as we > saw > > situations where not all the processor capabilities are allowed by the > VM, > > but for the software it looks as if these capabilities are allowed... > > > > > > So you are implying my two boxen (intel and amd) are all buggy so i > should compile from source on both? >
buggy? I never said that. It just so happened that the binary you run on them was built for a slightly different architecture. > > I should have be warned before downloading the binary, please make > this statement explicit on the binary download page :))) > > Well, Sage keeps shooting itself in the foot here. Few releases ago there was a similar problem with OSX binaries :-(. It would help if you post specifications of your processors. That is, the output of cat /proc/cpuinfo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
