Hi all,
On 15 Mrz., 14:10, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
And now the bad news: Using the above compiler flags, Sage became
MASSIVELY slower, by factors of 2 or 3. That's why I interrupted sage -
testall after about 54% (there was no error up to that point).
It was argued that this
On Mar 16, 7:20 am, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi all,
On 15 Mrz., 14:10, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
And now the bad news: Using the above compiler flags, Sage became
MASSIVELY slower, by factors of 2 or 3. That's why I interrupted sage -
testall after about
Hi Leif,
On 16 Mrz., 08:51, leif not.rea...@online.de wrote:
Really? Compiling GCC 4.6.3 ('make -j4') with C, C++, Fortran, Java
and LTO enabled took exactly 3 hours on my dual-core Netbook(!) (AMD
Fusion E-450), plus 4 minutes 'make install'. (Bootstrapped with GCC
4.4.3, '-march=native -O3
On 2012-03-16 09:45, Simon King wrote:
The question is: Is a missing fortran compiler a good reason to build
all of GCC?
In fact, yes. Because building just a Fortran compiler implies that
most of GCC must be built anyway.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
Hi Leif, hi all,
On 15 Mrz., 04:13, leif not.rea...@online.de wrote:
So what we currently need is CLooG-PPL 0.15.11, and a suitable version
of PPL. (I'm not 100% sure that PPL 0.11.2, the version currently
shipped with Sage, works, but /I think/(tm) it will...)
I installed
* a modified PPL
On 15 Mrz., 07:12, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
I installed
* a modified PPL 0.11.2 spkg, that also installs a C interface,
* a CLooG-PPL 0.15.11 spkg
* a modified gcc 4.6.3 spkg, that builds gcc with graphite.
And I forgot: I also upgraded the optional GMP spkg (GMP is required
On Mar 15, 7:15 am, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
On 15 Mrz., 07:12, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
I installed
* a modified PPL 0.11.2 spkg, that also installs a C interface,
* a CLooG-PPL 0.15.11 spkg
* a modified gcc 4.6.3 spkg, that builds gcc with graphite.
Hi Leif,
On 15 Mrz., 08:17, leif not.rea...@online.de wrote:
And I forgot: I also upgraded the optional GMP spkg (GMP is required
by CLooG). Our old spkg was broken and needed massive patches. I made
an spkg based on unpatched GMP 5.0.4 upstream sources. I have no idea
what would happen
On Thursday, 15 March 2012 16:15:09 UTC+8, Simon King wrote:
Hi Leif,
On 15 Mrz., 08:17, leif not.rea...@online.de wrote:
And I forgot: I also upgraded the optional GMP spkg (GMP is required
by CLooG). Our old spkg was broken and needed massive patches. I made
an spkg based on
Hi All!
On 13 Mrz., 10:00, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Try CFLAGS=-O3 -march=native CXXFLAGS=-O3 -march=native and see if
that works.
Meanwhile I managed to build the (slightly modified) gcc with
graphite, based on
* an extension of the standard ppl spkg (build the ppl C
Hi Leif, hi all,
On 14 Mrz., 05:47, leif not.rea...@online.de wrote:
...
PPL is also part of Sage
But then, GCC can not use CLooG/PPL (I have tried). I was told that it
is because of a missing header.
The header is easy to get, though: The current (standard) ppl spkg
only builds the c++
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:44:03 P Purkayastha wrote:
On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:54:32 AM UTC+8, François wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:18:41 P Purkayastha wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:41:35 PM UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
If you do this, you certainly should not restrict yourself to
On Mar 14, 6:44 am, P Purkayastha ppu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:54:32 AM UTC+8, François wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:18:41 P Purkayastha wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:41:35 PM UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
If you do this, you certainly should not restrict
On 2012-03-14 01:11, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
You seem to indicate this will not be used to build Sage any more.
Right?
Exactly.
(even though this is a working setup, as far as Sage 5.0.beta* are
concerned...
Well, is there anything wrong with replacing a working setup by a
different working
On 2012-03-14 02:07, John H Palmieri wrote:
I guess the answer to your question is yes, though: even with OS X 10.6
or earlier, the proposal is to build gcc.
Since Xcode doesn't include a Fortran compiler and the Fortran spkg will
be removed, we *have* to build GCC anyway for gfortran.
--
To
On 2012-03-14 07:24, Simon King wrote:
* CLooG needs GMP.
Are you sure it doesn't work with MPIR?
--
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
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 09:27:21AM +0100, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-03-14 07:24, Simon King wrote:
* CLooG needs GMP.
Are you sure it doesn't work with MPIR?
Incidentally, Cédric Bastoul, the author of CLooG is working is the same
research lab as me and teaching is the same department as
Hi Jeroen,
On 14 Mrz., 09:27, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2012-03-14 07:24, Simon King wrote: * CLooG needs GMP.
Are you sure it doesn't work with MPIR?
When I first tried to install CLooG, then it failed and told me that
GMP is missing. That's why I said GLooG needs GMP.
On 2012-03-14 09:46, Simon King wrote:
cloog is different from cloog-ppl
I understand it that CLooG is the logical continuation of CLooG-PPL, so
it is the same software. CLooG-PPL 0.15 was followed by CLooG 0.16.
The reason they dropped the -PPL suffix is that CLooG 0.16 doesn't
need PPL as
Hi Jeroen,
On 14 Mrz., 09:52, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
The reason they dropped the -PPL suffix is that CLooG 0.16 doesn't
need PPL as build-time dependency. CLooG-PPL needs PPL at build-time
(that's why you need the --with-ppl option). GCC with Graphite needs
PPL itself
On 14 Mrz., 10:17, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
The first thing I tried was CLooG 0.17.0, not using --with-ppl. That
has not been enough for your gcc spkg.
To be precise:
PPL with C interface and CLooG 0.17.0 not using --with-ppl = no
success
Adding CLooG-PPL 0.15.11 not using
On Mar 14, 10:25 am, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
On 14 Mrz., 10:17, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
The first thing I tried was CLooG 0.17.0, not using --with-ppl. That
has not been enough for your gcc spkg.
To be precise:
PPL with C interface and CLooG 0.17.0 not
Hi François, Jeroen and Volker,
On 12 Mrz., 21:58, François Bissey francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:44:21 Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-03-12 19:48,
Volker Braun wrote:
One thing that I'm not entirely happy with is that we bulid gcc without
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi François, Jeroen and Volker,
On 12 Mrz., 21:58, François Bissey francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:44:21 Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-03-12 19:48,
Volker Braun wrote:
One thing that
Le lundi 12 mars, Simon King a écrit:
- The spkg should be used not only if the system's gcc has the
wrong version, but also if the system's gcc does not provide
graphite/ppl/cloog
Is sage a distribution of mathematical software or a distribution?
It's already replicating a good chunk of my
On 2012-03-13 07:33, Simon King wrote:
- We should see what spkgs would benefit from the additional
optimization, and let their spkg-install / their makefiles provide the
relevant gcc command line options
And who is volunteering to do this? Not me. This sounds like something
which can be
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:41:35 PM UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
If you do this, you certainly should not restrict yourself to the
Graphite command line options, you should optimize gcc's flags in
general (like adding -march for example).
Jeroen.
If you do set -march, then
Hi!
On 13 Mrz., 07:33, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
That sounds like
- We should add graphite/ppl/cloog to the new gcc spkg
Google told me that graphite is in gcc since version 4.4. But from the
comments in this thread I got the impression that graphite is
something that one may
On 2012-03-13 09:40, Simon King wrote:
So, could some expert please elaborate why it is claimed that the gcc
spkg does *not* come with graphite? I suppose gcc 4.6.3 (provided by
the spkg) contains graphite, since gcc 4.4 does.
Graphite depends on PPL (which is in Sage) and on CLooG (which is
Hi Jeroen,
On 13 Mrz., 09:45, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
Graphite depends on PPL (which is in Sage) and on CLooG (which is NOT in
Sage). So, while the Graphite loop optimizer is in GCC, it will not be
compiled in without these dependencies.
Thank you!
So, can I assume that
Hi Jeroen,
On 13 Mrz., 09:50, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
And if I'd like to test something like -march=native mentioned by
Purkayastha, can I set some environment variable such that building a
Cython extension would be built with -march=native?
Got it: With CFLAGS=-march=native,
On 2012-03-13 09:50, Simon King wrote:
So, can I assume that when I install PPL and CLooG on my machine, then
my system's gcc would be able to use the loop optimizer? Or would I
then also need to rebuild gcc?
Yes, you need to rebuild GCC.
Or: If the user happens to have CLooG, would our gcc
On 2012-03-13 09:59, Simon King wrote:
I have just installed CLooG, and you said that Sage provides PPL.
Where did you install CLooG? If you install it in $SAGE_ROOT/local,
then it might just work if you compile the GCC spkg from #12369.
Check the configure part of spkg/logs/gcc-4.6.3 for CLooG.
Hi Jeroen,
On 13 Mrz., 10:07, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2012-03-13 09:59, Simon King wrote: I have just installed CLooG, and you
said that Sage provides PPL.
Where did you install CLooG?
By install, I meant install with Yast (my laptop runs under
openSuse).
Cheers,
On 2012-03-13 10:27, Simon King wrote:
By install, I meant install with Yast (my laptop runs under
openSuse).
Does the GCC spkg find it?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
On 13 Mrz., 10:36, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2012-03-13 10:27, Simon King wrote: By install, I meant install with
Yast (my laptop runs under
openSuse).
Does the GCC spkg find it?
No idea yet.
I the last minutes, I tried to follow your advice to install CLooG in
Hi!
I created a ticket for the broken (at least on openSuse) optional
gmp-4.2.1 package: #12661.
Cheers,
Simon
--
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,
On 2012-03-13 10:39, Simon King wrote:
On 13 Mrz., 10:36, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2012-03-13 10:27, Simon King wrote: By install, I meant install with
Yast (my laptop runs under
openSuse).
Does the GCC spkg find it?
No idea yet.
I the last minutes, I tried
Hi Jeroen,
On 13 Mrz., 11:43, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
You should be able to use MPIR instead of GMP.
I was told by CLooG that it needs GMP.
Independent of that, I wouldn't mind to fix the optional gmp package.
I got it to install work on my openSUSE. Unfortunately,
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:18:41 P Purkayastha wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:41:35 PM UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
If you do this, you certainly should not restrict yourself to the
Graphite command line options, you should optimize gcc's flags in
general (like adding -march for example).
On Monday, 12 March 2012 06:15:35 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I have made a spkg for GCC (GNU compiler collection) version 4.6.3 with
compilers for C, C++ and Fortran, see Trac #12369.
The GCC spkg depends on an MPC (multi-precision complex numbers) spkg.
There has been an optional MPC
On Wednesday, 14 March 2012 08:11:00 UTC+8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2012 06:15:35 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I have made a spkg for GCC (GNU compiler collection) version 4.6.3 with
compilers for C, C++ and Fortran, see Trac #12369.
The GCC spkg depends on an MPC
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:11:00 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2012 06:15:35 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I have made a spkg for GCC (GNU compiler collection) version 4.6.3 with
compilers for C, C++ and Fortran, see Trac #12369.
The GCC spkg depends on an MPC
On Mar 12, 9:58 pm, François Bissey francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:44:21 Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-03-12 19:48,
Volker Braun wrote:
I'm all in favor of adding the gcc spkg.
One thing that I'm not entirely happy with is that we bulid gcc without
On Wednesday, 14 March 2012 09:07:17 UTC+8, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 5:11:00 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Monday, 12 March 2012 06:15:35 UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I have made a spkg for GCC (GNU compiler collection) version 4.6.3 with
compilers for C,
On Mar 13, 10:27 am, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
On 13 Mrz., 10:07, Jeroen Demeyer jdeme...@cage.ugent.be wrote:
On 2012-03-13 09:59, Simon King wrote: I have just installed CLooG, and
you said that Sage provides PPL.
Where did you install CLooG?
By install, I
On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:54:32 AM UTC+8, François wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:18:41 P Purkayastha wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:41:35 PM UTC+8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
If you do this, you certainly should not restrict yourself to the
Graphite command line options, you
Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net writes:
As it's optional, it's not really added: +1 too.
But it is not optional - Jeroen is proposing to make this a standard
package. Or did I misunderstand you?
-Keshav
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
--
To post to this group, send an
Le lundi 12 mars, Keshav Kini a écrit:
Julien Puydt julien.pu...@laposte.net writes:
As it's optional, it's not really added: +1 too.
But it is not optional - Jeroen is proposing to make this a standard
package. Or did I misunderstand you?
Poor choice of words on my part : it is not
I'm all in favor of adding the gcc spkg.
One thing that I'm not entirely happy with is that we bulid gcc without
graphite/ppl/cloog, so I suspect that the code speed isn't as good as it
could be. But since we only use the self-compiled gcc if the os-supplied
one is crap I think its fine.
--
On Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:15:35 PM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
What are your +1/-1 to making GCC and MPC standard packages?
+1 (especially since it allows us to build Sage on Lion without making
other compromises)
--
John
--
To post to this group, send an email to
On 2012-03-12 19:48, Volker Braun wrote:
I'm all in favor of adding the gcc spkg.
One thing that I'm not entirely happy with is that we bulid gcc without
graphite/ppl/cloog, so I suspect that the code speed isn't as good as it
could be. But since we only use the self-compiled gcc if the
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:44:21 Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-03-12 19:48, Volker Braun wrote:
I'm all in favor of adding the gcc spkg.
One thing that I'm not entirely happy with is that we bulid gcc without
graphite/ppl/cloog, so I suspect that the code speed isn't as good as it
could
53 matches
Mail list logo
