"We do not install the cephes library on any operating system except Cygwin."
I think boost.math would be a better choice of special function library e.g. for systems where the libc implementation sucks. Also, it seems like cephes is included in scipy distribution (scipy-0.9.p1/src/scipy/special/cephes/) so we ship it already.
> It doesn't seem sage got the cephes code from one of those places where > it was released under a GPL licence ; perhaps it would be worth > repackaging?
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think boost.math would be a better choice of special function library e.g.
> for systems where the libc implementation sucks.
I don't think that boost.math supports the things that we need it to,
for example complex.h.
>Also, it seems like cephes
> is included in scipy distribution (scipy-0.9.p1/src/scipy/special/cephes/)
> so we ship it already.
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 8:15:06 PM UTC-4, Mike Hansen wrote:
> I don't think that boost.math supports the things that we need it to, > for example complex.h.
Oh I see you are saying they don't support complex arguments for all functions.
> >Also, it seems like cephes > > is included in scipy distribution > (scipy-0.9.p1/src/scipy/special/cephes/) > I believe this is something totally different.
I'm pretty sure this is the same cephes, the sources contain "Cephes Math Library Release 2.3: March, 1995 Copyright 1984, 1995 by Stephen L. Moshier".
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 19, 2012 8:15:06 PM UTC-4, Mike Hansen wrote:
>> I don't think that boost.math supports the things that we need it to,
>> for example complex.h.
> Oh I see you are saying they don't support complex arguments for all
> functions.
No -- Cygwin doesn't have C9X complex support nor long double support
(things like cabs or sqrtl). The cephes package provides that.
>> >Also, it seems like cephes
>> > is included in scipy distribution
>> > (scipy-0.9.p1/src/scipy/special/cephes/)
>> I believe this is something totally different.
> I'm pretty sure this is the same cephes, the sources contain "Cephes Math
> Library Release 2.3: March, 1995 Copyright 1984, 1995 by Stephen L.
> Moshier".
It looks like an older version of the double library for special
functions (src/double/ in the cephes spkg), but that's only a small
part of what is needed.
On 20 May 2012 00:58, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently, the cephes package only prints:
> "We do not install the cephes library on any operating system except
> Cygwin."
I believe when someone else (I forget who), was working on the FreeBSD
port, he needed Cephas too. I believe Sage is now building on FreeBSD,
but it might be using this too.
> I believe when someone else (I forget who), was working on the FreeBSD
> port, he needed Cephas too. I believe Sage is now building on FreeBSD,
> but it might be using this too.
In fact, at some point Dima thought we could use cephes to fix the
gamma precision issues of the libc on ARM ; that is why I was
investigating cephes more closely.
> On 20 May 2012 00:58, Volker Braun<vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Currently, the cephes package only prints:
>> "We do not install the cephes library on any operating system except
>> Cygwin."
> I believe when someone else (I forget who), was working on the FreeBSD
> port, he needed Cephas too. I believe Sage is now building on FreeBSD,
> but it might be using this too.
On 05/20/12 03:38 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> On 05/20/2012 06:50 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>> On 20 May 2012 00:58, Volker Braun<vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Currently, the cephes package only prints:
>>> "We do not install the cephes library on any operating system except
>>> Cygwin."
>> I believe when someone else (I forget who), was working on the FreeBSD
>> port, he needed Cephas too. I believe Sage is now building on FreeBSD,
>> but it might be using this too.
>> dave
> That was me. Yes, please keep cephes in sage.
It was Peter Jeremy before you working on the FreeBSD port. I knew he used Cephes. So it seems the comment about
"We do not install the cephes library on any operating system except Cygwin."
is just plain wrong.
Is anyone working on a Cygin port any more? I used to wonder if the Solaris or Cygwin ports would be completed first, but the race was not as close as I expected it would be.
> On 05/20/12 03:38 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>> On 05/20/2012 06:50 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>>> On 20 May 2012 00:58, Volker Braun<vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Currently, the cephes package only prints:
>>>> "We do not install the cephes library on any operating system except
>>>> Cygwin."
>>> I believe when someone else (I forget who), was working on the FreeBSD
>>> port, he needed Cephas too. I believe Sage is now building on FreeBSD,
>>> but it might be using this too.
>>> dave
>> That was me. Yes, please keep cephes in sage.
> It was Peter Jeremy before you working on the FreeBSD port.
Yes, my apologies if there was any misattribution. I use Peter Jeremy's patches in the port of sage to FreeBSD.
> On 05/20/2012 10:39 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> On 05/20/12 03:38 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>> On 05/20/2012 06:50 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>>>> On 20 May 2012 00:58, Volker Braun<vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Currently, the cephes package only prints:
>>>>> "We do not install the cephes library on any operating system except
>>>>> Cygwin."
>>>> I believe when someone else (I forget who), was working on the FreeBSD
>>>> port, he needed Cephas too. I believe Sage is now building on FreeBSD,
>>>> but it might be using this too.
>>>> dave
>>> That was me. Yes, please keep cephes in sage.
>> It was Peter Jeremy before you working on the FreeBSD port.
> Yes, my apologies if there was any misattribution. I use Peter Jeremy's
> patches in the port of sage to FreeBSD.
"Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> writes:
> Is anyone working on a Cygin port any more? I used to wonder if the
> Solaris or Cygwin ports would be completed first, but the race was not
> as close as I expected it would be.
As far as I remember, our BDFL publicly stated that working on a Cygwin
port is a waste of time, after which people more or less stopped working
on it :)
