"best" rational number library for Python?

[skip]

A guy at work asked for functionality commonly found with rational numbers,
so I said I'd find and install something. I figured gmpy would be suitable,
alas I'm having trouble successfully building the underlying GMP 4.2.1
library on a PC running Solaris 10 (won't compile with the default --host,
fails "make check" if I go the no-assembly route). Before I invest a bunch
of time into this, am I barking up the wrong tree?

Performance is, for now, certainly not an issue. Even a pure Python
rational number class would probably suffice.

Thx,

Skip

 

[Paul Rubin]

Performance is, for now, certainly not an issue. Even a pure Python
rational number class would probably suffice.

There are certainly some of those around, but I'm surprised there's a
problem with GMP and Solaris.

 

[skip]

Paul> There are certainly some of those around, but I'm surprised
Paul> there's a problem with GMP and Solaris.

That was my thought as well.

Skip

 

[casevh]

A guy at work asked for functionality commonly found with rational numbers,

so I said I'd find and install something. I figured gmpy would be suitable,
alas I'm having trouble successfully building the underlying GMP 4.2.1
library on a PC running Solaris 10 (won't compile with the default --host,
fails "make check" if I go the no-assembly route). Before I invest a bunch
of time into this, am I barking up the wrong tree?

I've successfully compiled GMP 4.2.1 on Solaris 10 x86 using both the
GCC and Sun Studio compilers on AMD 32-bit platform.

I just compiled GMP 4.2.1 on a P4 using

$ CFLAGS="" CC=gcc ./configure
$ gmake; gmake check

and all tests passed.

casevh

 

[casevh]

A guy at work asked for functionality commonly found with rational numbers,

so I said I'd find and install something. I figured gmpy would be suitable,
alas I'm having trouble successfully building the underlying GMP 4.2.1
library on a PC running Solaris 10 (won't compile with the default --host,
fails "make check" if I go the no-assembly route). Before I invest a bunch
of time into this, am I barking up the wrong tree?

I've successfully compiled GMP 4.2.1 on Solaris 10 x86 using both the
GCC and Sun Studio compilers on AMD 32-bit platform.

I just compiled GMP 4.2.1 on a P4 using

$ CFLAGS="" CC=gcc ./configure
$ gmake; gmake check

and all tests passed.

casevh

 

[casevh]

Oops, on the double-post.

I've successfully compiled GMP 4.2.1 on Solaris 10 x86 using both the
GCC and Sun Studio compilers on AMD 32-bit platform.

I just compiled GMP 4.2.1 on a P4 using

$ CFLAGS="" CC=gcc ./configure
$ gmake; gmake check

You must use "gmake". "make" fails during "make check"

 

[skip]

casevh> You must use "gmake". "make" fails during "make check"

Very weird:

piggy:% make -v
GNU Make 3.80
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
piggy:% gmake -v
GNU Make 3.80
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Nevertheless, using "gmake" instead of "make" did indeed work. Thanks for
the hint.

Skip

 

[Gabriel G]

casevh> You must use "gmake". "make" fails during "make check"

Very weird:

piggy:% make -v
GNU Make 3.80
piggy:% gmake -v
GNU Make 3.80

Nevertheless, using "gmake" instead of "make" did indeed work. Thanks for
the hint.

Ouch! Like bash behaving different when invoked with the name "sh".
Why do those programs try to be soooo smart?


--
Gabriel Genellina
Softlab SRL

__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar