On 10/14/2012 09:54 PM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 06:18:54AM -0700, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Sunday, 14 October 2012 20:16:40 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-10-14 10:16, P Purkayastha wrote:
It is not whether the CPU has any bug. The sage binaries and the
libraries it depends on are (I believe) compiled with some minimal level
of optimization. Maybe some optimization got applied in the atlas
library which is not present in your cpu.
As I said, I doubt that this can lead to Segmentation Faults. In this
case, one should see an Illegal Instruction (SIGILL).
It's easy to imagine, say, the same CPU command requiring a different
memory alignment on an older arc.
I haven't written a line of assembler since circa 1989 (although plenty
before that :-)) and I don't speak x86 assembler, but, you know...
Please make it clear you don't support generic x86_64, only the CPUs you
like :)))))))
I believe, the intention is to support generic x86_64. Otherwise the
reply you would have got is: "you probably don't have a supported CPU". :)))
I didn't understand did someone try it on 10.04 probably in VM?
I am pretty sure the binaries are all tested in the sense that all
doctests are run to make sure they don't give any errors. Jeroen is very
strict about this. :)
VM is a different ballgame. If you search the sage-devel or maybe this
group (within this year), you will find some threads talking about some
problems people have run into in running precompiled Sage (or maybe just
compiling Sage) on VMs. vbraun here releases Virtualbox images with
Sage. They can be found in the Windows download of Sage. More details
here: http://wiki.sagemath.org/SageAppliance
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
