Re: [Numpy-discussion] 64-bit windows numpy / scipy wheels for testing

2014-05-08 Thread Sturla Molden
On 09/05/14 02:51, Matthew Brett wrote: > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/wiki/Window-versions > > Firefox crash reports now have about 1 percent of machines without > SSE2. I suspect that people running new installs of numpy will have > slightly better machines on average than Firefox users, but

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 64-bit windows numpy / scipy wheels for testing

2014-05-08 Thread Matthew Brett
Hi, On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:29 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Aha, >> >> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carl Kleffner >> > wrote: >> >> A possible

Re: [Numpy-discussion] segfault from scipy.io.netcdf with scipy-0.14 numpy-0.18

2014-05-08 Thread Eric Firing
On 2014/05/07 11:26 PM, Robert McGibbon wrote: > Hey all, > > The travis tests for a library I work on just stopped working, and I > tracked down the bug to the following test case. The file > "MDTraj/testing/reference/mdcrd.nc " is a netcdf3 file > in our repository > (https://git

[Numpy-discussion] segfault from scipy.io.netcdf with scipy-0.14 numpy-0.18

2014-05-08 Thread Robert McGibbon
Hey all, The travis tests for a library I work on just stopped working, and I tracked down the bug to the following test case. The file "MDTraj/testing/reference/mdcrd.nc" is a netcdf3 file in our repository ( https://github.com/rmcgibbo/mdtraj/tree/master/MDTraj/testing/reference). this script:

Re: [Numpy-discussion] IDL vs Python parallel computing

2014-05-08 Thread Siegfried Gonzi
On 08/05/2014 04:00, numpy-discussion-requ...@scipy.org wrote: > Send NumPy-Discussion mailing list submissions to > numpy-discussion@scipy.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > or, via email, send a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] IDL vs Python parallel computing

2014-05-08 Thread Julian Taylor
On 08.05.2014 02:48, Frédéric Bastien wrote: > Just a quick question/possibility. > > What about just parallelizing ufunc with only 1 inputs that is c or > fortran contiguous like trigonometric function? Is there a fast path in > the ufunc mechanism when the input is fortran/c contig? If that is t