On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:46 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > could have expl replaced by exp. But there are likely other problems that
> > will need fixing.
>
> I think this is red-herring. Do
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> could have expl replaced by exp. But there are likely other problems that
> will need fixing.
I think this is red-herring. Does it really make sense to force
configuring long double as double if the C runtime and com
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Charles R Harris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > There is seems to be a problem in defi
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is seems to be a problem in defining the functions called for the
> > different types.
>
> I don't know enough about this p
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Charles R Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Charles R Harris <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Char
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> There is seems to be a problem in defining the functions called for the
> different types.
I don't know enough about this part of the code to be sure about the
whole function calls stack, but I would guess this is n
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Charles R Harris <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charles R Harris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I was just going to look at that; it's n
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:24 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I was just going to look at that; it's nice to have the ticket mailing
> list
> > working again. Is there an easy way to force the
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I was just going to look at that; it's nice to have the ticket mailing list
> working again. Is there an easy way to force the SIZEOF_LONG_DOUBLE to 8 so
> I can test this on linux?
Changing this line in numpy¥core¥s
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:10 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > That's my opinion also, I just thought that -DNOLONGDOUBLE was an easy
> way
> > to force that choice. David thinks that the func
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's my opinion also, I just thought that -DNOLONGDOUBLE was an easy way
> to force that choice. David thinks that the function detection in the ufunc
> module will be a problem.
Forget what I said, I think I used
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Travis E. Oliphant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes. I don't think MS will support "true" long doubles any time soon
> > and this affects printing and the math functions. I'm not sure what
> > the best solution is, there are vario
Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> Yes. I don't think MS will support "true" long doubles any time soon
> and this affects printing and the math functions. I'm not sure what
> the best solution is, there are various possibilities.
>
> 1) We could define the numpy longdouble type to be double, which ma
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1) We could define the numpy longdouble type to be double, which makes us
> compatible with MS and is effectively what numpy compiled with MSVC does
> since MSVC long doubles are doubles. Perhaps this could be done by
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't mingw use the MSVC library?
>
> Yes, it does. But long double is both a compiler and library issue.
> sizeof(long double) is
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Charles R Harris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't mingw use the MSVC library?
>
> Yes, it does. But long double is both a compiler and library issue.
> sizeof(long double) is
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Charles R Harris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Doesn't mingw use the MSVC library?
Yes, it does. But long double is both a compiler and library issue.
sizeof(long double) is defined by the compiler, and it is different
with mingw and visual studio ATM. I don't kno
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The test failures on windows with 1.2b2 are due to buggy long double
> behavior of mingw. My understanding is that on windows, long double is
> 8 bytes (that's the sizeof value returned by VS 2003), but mingw say
Hi,
The test failures on windows with 1.2b2 are due to buggy long double
behavior of mingw. My understanding is that on windows, long double is
8 bytes (that's the sizeof value returned by VS 2003), but mingw says
12 bytes.
One solution would be forcing numpy to configure itself to handle long
do
19 matches
Mail list logo
