On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:12 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>
> > The undefs need to be there when the functions are defined by numpy, so
> they
> > only need to be in the same #if block as those definitions. I moved them
> o
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:12 PM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>
> > The undefs need to be there when the functions are defined by numpy, so
> they
> > only need to be in the same #if block as those definitions. I moved them
> o
Hi Chuck,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> The undefs need to be there when the functions are defined by numpy, so they
> only need to be in the same #if block as those definitions. I moved them out
> to cover the function declarations also, but if those are put in thei
Hi David,
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:58 PM, David Cournapeau <
da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> > The declarations were for the SPARC. Originally I had them up in an
> > ifdef up top, but I got curious what different machines would do.
>
> I still don't understa
Charles R Harris wrote:
>
> The declarations were for the SPARC. Originally I had them up in an
> ifdef up top, but I got curious what different machines would do.
I still don't understand what exact problem they solve. Since the
declarations are put when HAVE_FOO is defined, the only problems I c
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM, David Cournapeau <
da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Cournapeau
> > mailto:da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp>>
> > wrote:
>
>
> It does not work at the moment on windows at least :) But mor
Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Cournapeau
> mailto:da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>There have been some changes recently in the umath code, which
> breaks windows 64 compilation - and I don't understand their rationale
> e
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:59 PM, David Cournapeau <
da...@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>There have been some changes recently in the umath code, which
> breaks windows 64 compilation - and I don't understand their rationale
> either. I have myself spent quite a good deal of time to m
Hi,
There have been some changes recently in the umath code, which
breaks windows 64 compilation - and I don't understand their rationale
either. I have myself spent quite a good deal of time to make sure this
works on many platforms/toolchains, by fixing the config distutils
command and that
