On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:01 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote:
>>
>> The problem I have with spending time on it though is that there is
>> still
>> more implementation work to finish on the datetime functionality to
>> complete
>> the NEP imp
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> The problem I have with spending time on it though is that there is still
> more implementation work to finish on the datetime functionality to complete
> the NEP implementation. Naturally, I'd like to see those improvements
> made fi
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:51 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Travis Oliphant
> wrote:
>
> I apologize for the mis communication that has occurred here.
>
> No problem
>
> I did not
>
> understand that there w
On Oct 7, 2009, at 9:51 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Travis Oliphant > wrote:
I apologize for the mis communication that has occurred here.
No problem
I did not
understand that there was a desire to keep ABI compatibility with
NumPy 1.3
when NumPy 1.4 wa
Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> We can work on implementing that today.
>
I am working on it ATM - it is taking me longer than expected, though.
David
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/n
2009/10/8 Charles R Harris :
> code generator problem and doesn't call for a jump in major version. We hope
> ;) I think David's hack, which looks to have been committed by Stefan,
> should fix things up.
I accidentally committed some of David's patches, but I reverted them
back out. I think Davi
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:06 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Looks like a clue ;)
>
>
> Ok, I fixed it here:
>
> http://github.com/cournape/numpy/tree/fix_abi
>
> But that's an
On 10/7/2009 10:57 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> it's "pimpl"
OK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_pointer
Thanks,
Alan Isaac
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 21:55, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:51 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> I would prefer passing to "numpy 2.0" when we really need to break ABI
>> and API - at that point, I think we should also think hard about
>> changing our structures and all to ma
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:51 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> I would prefer passing to "numpy 2.0" when we really need to break ABI
> and API - at that point, I think we should also think hard about
> changing our structures and all to make them more robust to those
> changes (using pimp-like strat
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> I apologize for the mis communication that has occurred here.
No problem
> I did not
> understand that there was a desire to keep ABI compatibility with NumPy 1.3
> when NumPy 1.4 was released. The datetime merge was made under that
On Oct 7, 2009, at 3:06 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
Looks like a clue ;)
Ok, I fixed it here:
http://github.com/cournape/numpy/tree/fix_abi
But that's an ugly hack. I think we should consider rewriting how we
generate the API: inst
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:37 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Charles R Harris
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:37 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:06 AM, David Cournapeau
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:37 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:06 AM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Looks like a clu
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:06 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Looks like a clue ;)
>>
>> Ok, I fixed it here:
>>
>> http://github.com/cournape/numpy/tree/fix_ab
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:06 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Looks like a clue ;)
>
> Ok, I fixed it here:
>
> http://github.com/cournape/numpy/tree/fix_abi
>
> But that's an ugly hack. I think we should consider rewriting how we
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> Looks like a clue ;)
Ok, I fixed it here:
http://github.com/cournape/numpy/tree/fix_abi
But that's an ugly hack. I think we should consider rewriting how we
generate the API: instead of automatically growing the API array of
fptr, we
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM, David Cournapeau
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2009/10/6 Sté
On 6-Oct-09, at 12:50 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> The version itself is fine, but the ABI has been changed in an
> incompatible way: if you have an extension built against say numpy
> 1.2.1, and then use a numpy built from sources after the datetime
> merge, it will segfault right away. It does
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM, David Cournapeau
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2009/10/6 Stéfan van der Walt
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> The current SVN HEAD of NumPy is
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2009/10/6 Stéfan van der Walt
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> The current SVN HEAD of NumPy is broken and should not be used.
> >> Extensions compiled against this version
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> 2009/10/6 Stéfan van der Walt
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The current SVN HEAD of NumPy is broken and should not be used.
>> Extensions compiled against this version may (will) segfault.
>>
>
> Can you be more specific? I haven't had any probl
2009/10/6 Charles R Harris :
> 2009/10/6 Stéfan van der Walt
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The current SVN HEAD of NumPy is broken and should not be used.
>> Extensions compiled against this version may (will) segfault.
>>
>
> Can you be more specific? I haven't had any problems running current svn
> with s
2009/10/6 Stéfan van der Walt
> Hi all,
>
> The current SVN HEAD of NumPy is broken and should not be used.
> Extensions compiled against this version may (will) segfault.
>
>
Can you be more specific? I haven't had any problems running current svn
with scipy.
Chuck
_
2009/10/6 Stéfan van der Walt
> Hi all,
>
> The current SVN HEAD of NumPy is broken and should not be used.
> Extensions compiled against this version may (will) segfault.
>
> Travis, if you could have a look at the side-effects caused by r7050,
> that would be great. I meant to figure out what
Hi all,
The current SVN HEAD of NumPy is broken and should not be used.
Extensions compiled against this version may (will) segfault.
Travis, if you could have a look at the side-effects caused by r7050,
that would be great. I meant to figure out what was wrong, but seeing
that this is a 3000 li
27 matches
Mail list logo
