Is there something in the Python build log
(logs/pkgs/python2-2.7.13.p1.log) that would explain the issue with
semaphores?
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 7:50:33 PM UTC+2, Kamil Pliszka wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have problem when compiling sage7.6:
>
> ...
> [sagelib-7.6] building
Hi,
I have problem when compiling sage7.6:
...
[sagelib-7.6] building 'sage.tests.stl_vector' extension
[sagelib-7.6] building 'sage.tests.cython' extension
[sagelib-7.6] Executing 454 commands (using 1 thread)
[sagelib-7.6]
You might think about publishing this, with code,
in http://rescience.github.io/
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:25:13 PM UTC+1, Paul Leopardi wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have just completed the first draft of a paper, "Classifying bent
> functions by their Cayley graphs".
>
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 4:19:22 PM UTC+1, Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the "sage -sws2rst" command does not display code block properly (see
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22512).
>
> The following pull request should fix it (to be typed from the sagenb/
>
Thank you.
I've got the file I was looking for.
Pedro
quarta-feira, 10 de Maio de 2017 às 15:32:57 UTC+1, Harald Schilly escreveu:
>
> Hi, yes, the url is correct and file is hosted at
> http://old.files.sagemath.org/src-old/
>
> The only problem was the server wasn't running. I don't know why,
Hi,
the "sage -sws2rst" command does not display code block properly (see
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22512).
The following pull request should fix it (to be typed from the sagenb/
repository at <1.0.rc0>):
git pull http://tmpsagenb.metelu.net/sagenb.git master
(the sha256sum of the
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 1:32:39 PM UTC+1, Enrique Artal wrote:
>
> Is there any particular change to test?
>
it's hard to say. It's an incremental update, incorporating perhaps 50 or
so minor changes and tweaks.
The biggest changes are in making the code more Python-3 ready.
>
> El
Hi Paul,
>1. Is there a process to ask for a code review of this type of code
>(i.e. code primarily written to support a paper)?
Alas, one of the weaknesses of the current research publication process...
>2. Do you have any suggestions as to how and where I could publish a
>
Is there any particular change to test?
El miércoles, 10 de mayo de 2017, 16:12:26 (UTC+2), Dima Pasechnik escribió:
>
> Please test https://github.com/sagemath/sagenb/tree/1.0.rc0 (copy of the
> current master) before I go ahead with making a new Sage package. It works
> for me following the
Here's the bt for the latter example:
#0 visit_decref (op=0xfdc9906aac2f2efe, data=0x0) at Modules/gcmodule.c:360
#1 0x3fffad7f61e0 in
__pyx_tp_traverse_4sage_4misc_9randstate_randstate (
o=0x3ffb1a37c5d0, v=@0x3fffb7f62aa8: 0x3fffb7eb91d0 ,
a=0x0)
at
I confused flint_rand_t and gmp_randstate_t. And our randstate does not
support flint yet... I will postpone the changes to randomize to another
ticket.
Sorry for the noise.
On 11/05/2017 11:55, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
given libpthread being involved, I guess it might have to do with GIL vs
The bug also shows up with
{{{
sage: a = matrix(QQ, 1)
sage: a.randomize()
sage: del a
sage: import gc
sage: gc.collect()
}}}
On 11/05/2017 11:55, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
given libpthread being involved, I guess it might have to do with GIL vs
NOGIL stuff...
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at
given libpthread being involved, I guess it might have to do with GIL vs
NOGIL stuff...
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:50:39 AM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> While working on [1] I stumbled on a strange segfault. Namely, with the
> branch applied I got
>
> {{{
> sage: a =
Dear all,
While working on [1] I stumbled on a strange segfault. Namely, with the
branch applied I got
{{{
sage: a = matrix(QQ, 1)
sage: a.randomize()
sage: quit
Exiting Sage (CPU time 0m1.48s, Wall time 0m5.80s).
I agree with Erik.
> This distinction between docstrings vs. comments has never been the Sage
> practice: Sage practice and official policy has always been to use
> docstrings. Part of the point is that Sage has intentionally tried to blur
> the line between user and developer, so any
Le 11/05/2017 à 03:44, Brent Thomas a écrit :
> I have been trying to install sage on a raspberry pi 3. I didn't find a
> binary of any recent version, so I'm trying to build it from source.
> I've run into an error with sage building gcc. The relevant part of the
> gcc-5.4.0.log file is below.
>
Hi Friedrich
I totally agree with 1) and 2): that kind of implementations would be
very appropriate and valuable to have in Sage. Concerning 3), I would
initially think that doc-tests could be sufficient.
I was loosely involved in some discussions on implementing the McEliece
public-key
17 matches
Mail list logo
