2008/6/18 mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Jun 18, 1:02 am, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
OK, you were right: atlas took 115m37s, i.e. about 2hrs .
That is pretty much what I suspected.
Anything I can do to speed this up in future? Otherwise I'll be less
inclined to test
On Jun 19, 12:57 am, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/18 mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Jun 18, 1:02 am, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
OK, you were right: atlas took 115m37s, i.e. about 2hrs .
That is pretty much what I suspected.
Hi John,
Anything
OK, you were right: atlas took 115m37s, i.e. about 2hrs .
When you say cache size, do you mean on the machine? The laptop has
2GB ram -- was supposed to have 4 but they forgot to install it and I
am expecting a guy to come by in the next couple of days to install
the extra. But maybe that is
On Jun 18, 1:02 am, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
OK, you were right: atlas took 115m37s, i.e. about 2hrs .
That is pretty much what I suspected.
When you say cache size, do you mean on the machine? The laptop has
2GB ram -- was supposed to have 4 but they forgot to
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Jaap Spies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for this release. This is as much as a birthday present.
All test passed!
Indeed, I released sage-3.0.3 last night. There is no official announcement
yet, but will be as soon as mabshoff writes release notes. But
William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Jaap Spies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for this release. This is as much as a birthday present.
All test passed!
Indeed, I released sage-3.0.3 last night. There is no official announcement
yet, but will be as soon as mabshoff
I finished the MAC OSX 10.4 build of sage-3.0.3 and am ready to build
the binary but I cannot remember the command. I thought it was
make dist but the makefile doesn't contain such a stanza.
Tim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM, root [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I finished the MAC OSX 10.4 build of sage-3.0.3 and am ready to build
the binary but I cannot remember the command. I thought it was
make dist but the makefile doesn't contain such a stanza.
./sage -bdist 3.0.3-osx10.4-ppc
and
I finished the MAC OSX 10.4 build of sage-3.0.3 and am ready to build
the binary but I cannot remember the command. I thought it was
make dist but the makefile doesn't contain such a stanza.
./sage -bdist 3.0.3-osx10.4-ppc
and you find the result in dist/
I tried to upload the dmg but blew
mabshoff wrote:
Hello folks,
this is hopefully the final step toward 3.0.3. The release is much
later than I had hoped, but it should be a solid one. There are a
massive number of positively reviewed tickets in trac and many things
are going on that will be done at Dev1, but those will
Built 3.0.3.rc0 on here:
Linux version 2.6.24-18-generic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.2.3
(Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)) #1 SMP Wed May 28 20:27:26 UTC 2008
and here:
Linux version 2.6.18.8-0.3-default ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version
4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)) #1 SMP Tue Apr 17
On Jun 16, 9:31 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am almost ok with releasing rc0. I saw only one problem with any
doctests (I
did not finish doctesting yet on itanium linux).
There is *one* problem on our debian64 virtual machine on bsd. I guess you
saw this problem
On Jun 17, 9:22 am, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Built 3.0.3.rc0 on here:
Hi John,
Linux version 2.6.24-18-generic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.2.3
(Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)) #1 SMP Wed May 28 20:27:26 UTC 2008
and here:
Linux version 2.6.18.8-0.3-default ([EMAIL
All tests passed for me on two Intel macs, running os x 10.4 and 10.5.
-M. Hampton
On Jun 17, 11:53 am, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 17, 9:22 am, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Built 3.0.3.rc0 on here:
Hi John,
Linux version 2.6.24-18-generic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc
On Jun 7, 3:12 am, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops, pressed return by accident.
This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
since I wanted to use it internally to test rebuild on some boxen. Due
to me chasing some other bugs and being busy in $REAL_LIFE
2008/6/7 mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Oops, pressed return by accident.
This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
since I wanted to use it internally to test rebuild on some boxen. Due
to me chasing some other bugs and being busy in $REAL_LIFE alpha2
didn't make
Built fine and all tests passed (hardy heon amd64, phenom processor).
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:12 PM, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops, pressed return by accident.
This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
since I wanted to use it internally to test rebuild
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Dr. David Kirkby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:12 am, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops, pressed return by accident.
This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
since I wanted to use it internally to test rebuild on
Oops, pressed return by accident.
This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
since I wanted to use it internally to test rebuild on some boxen. Due
to me chasing some other bugs and being busy in $REAL_LIFE alpha2
didn't make it, i.e. the Cyclomic patch which I merged in
At first, sage -testall repoted a failure, in twist.py, but on
retesting it passed:
...
The following tests failed:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/server/simple/twist.py
Total time for all tests: 5024.1 seconds
Please see /home/wdj/sagefiles/sage-3.0.3.alpha0/tmp/test.log for the
complete
On May 29, 4:14 pm, David Joyner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi David,
At first, sage -testall repoted a failure, in twist.py, but on
retesting it passed:
Thanks for testing. The twist.py pops up occasionally and it seems to
be cause by ports being closed/used - but I am certainly not 100% on
3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
John
2008/5/28 mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello folks,
this is Sage 3.0.3.alpha0. It looks like we we are continuing our
somewhat slow development pace while waiting for the coercion
rewrite to finish. Trac still has a staggering 75+ patches
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
My 3.03.alpha0 build testing:`
Fedora 8, x86_64: pass
suse, x86_64: pass
osx10.5 intel: pass
ubuntu32bit: pass
debian32bit: pass
debian 64bit: pass
ubuntu 64bit: pass
Suse,
On May 29, 6:33 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
My 3.03.alpha0 build testing:`
Fedora 8, x86_64: pass
suse, x86_64: pass
osx10.5 intel: pass
ubuntu32bit:
OSX PPC:
The new matrix mod2 code is *all wrong* there. Endianess?
Yes, if those are all doctest failures then they are all related to random
numbers. So either I use the the randgen framework wrongly or there is a bug
in there.
Martin
sage -t
On May 29, 6:33 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
SNIP
Suse, Itanium: fails; can't build clisp
I forgot this one: I tested on that machine and upgrading to clisp
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 29, 6:33 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
My 3.03.alpha0 build testing:`
Fedora
mabshoff wrote:
Hello folks,
this is Sage 3.0.3.alpha0. It looks like we we are continuing our
somewhat slow development pace while waiting for the coercion
rewrite to finish. Trac still has a staggering 75+ patches waiting
for review, so if you can spare a little time it would be nice if
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, mabshoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 29, 6:33 pm, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
My 3.03.alpha0 build testing:`
Fedora
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Yi Qiang ...
SNIP
Maybe we ought to raise the timeout?
Total time for all tests: 49.5 seconds
Can someone give me access to a fedora8 machine so I try to reproduce
the bug? We should not need to raise the timeout for this particular
test.
It turns out
On May 29, 9:33 am, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OSX PPC:
The new matrix mod2 code is *all wrong* there. Endianess?
sage -t devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix_mod2_dense.pyx
**
File
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Carl Witty wrote:
cdef unsigned int low = gmp_urandomb_ui(rstate.gmp_state, 32)
cdef unsigned int high = gmp_urandomb_ui(rstate.gmp_state, 32)
cdef unsigned long long combined = ((unsigned long longhigh)32)|
(unsigned long longlow)
values[j] = combined
Doh!
32 matches
Mail list logo
