Sage: Ticket #10766: Update ECL to the latest upstream release.
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
<p>
The latest version of the Lisp interpreter ECL, (which is used by Maxima) is 11.1.1, but the version of ECL in Sage is 10.4.1.
</p>
<p>
Version 10.4.1 is the source of one really major problem on 64-bit OpenSolaris (see <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9840" title="defect: link-editor thinks ECL library contains non-pic code on *all* ... (closed: duplicate)">#9840</a>), as it creates a broken library libecl.so, which can't be linked to. This stops Sage building as a 64-bit application.
</p>
<p>
The failure of ECL to build is due to non-PIC code being present, which itself was the result of the use of a GCC extension of "computed gotos" using in the ECL source code.
</p>
<p>
<a class="ext-link" href="http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.2/gcc/Labels-as-Values.html"><span class="icon"></span>http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.2/gcc/Labels-as-Values.html</a>
</p>
<p>
The updated ECL avoids this GCC extension on Solaris, with a result the library has no text relocation issues.
</p>
<p>
I'll create a new .spkg later.
</p>
<p>
Dave
</p>
en-usSagehttps://trac.sagemath.org/chrome/site/logo_sagemath_trac.png
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
Trac 1.1.6fbisseyThu, 10 Feb 2011 22:16:33 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:1
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:1
<p>
List of doctests in need of fixing for this to happen:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage-main/sage/modules/free_module_element.pyx"
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/modules/free_module_element.pyx", line 2487:
sage: answers
Expected:
[(0.5, 5.5511151231257843e-15, 21, 0),
(0.33333333333333343, 3.7007434154171903e-15, 21, 0),
(0.45969769413186018, 5.1036696439228408e-15, 21, 0)]
Got:
[(0.5, 5.5511151231257843e-15, 21, 0), (0.33333333333333337, 3.7007434154171903e-15, 21, 0), (0.45969769413186023, 5.1036696439228408e-15, 21, 0)]
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/modules/free_module_element.pyx", line 2493:
sage: r.nintegral(t,0,1)
Expected:
((0.5, 0.0, 1.0),
{0: (0.5, 5.5511151231257843e-15, 21, 0),
2: (1.0, 1.110223024625157e-14, 21, 0)})
Got:
((0.5, 0.0, 1.0), {0: (0.5, 5.5511151231257843e-15, 21, 0), 2: (1.0, 1.1102230246251569e-14, 21, 0)})
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
2 of 10 in __main__.example_70
</pre><p>
formatting and numeric noise
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/lisp.py"
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/lisp.py", line 378:
sage: lisp.function_call('sin', ['2'])
Expected:
0.90929741
Got:
0.9092974
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/lisp.py", line 380:
sage: lisp.sin(2)
Expected:
0.90929741
Got:
0.9092974
**********************************************************************
1 items had failures:
2 of 4 in __main__.example_23
</pre><p>
Numeric noise
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/maxima.py"
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 934:
sage: maxima.example('arrays')
Expected:
a[n]:=n*a[n-1]
a := n a
n n - 1
a[0]:1
a[5]
120
a[n]:=n
a[6]
6
a[4]
24
done
Got:
a := n a
n n - 1
a[0]:1
a[5]
120
a[n]:=n
a[6]
6
a[4]
24
done
<BLANKLINE>
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 1128:
sage: f(3.2)
Expected:
-.05837414342758009
Got:
-.058374143427580086
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 1925:
sage: a = maxima('sqrt(2)').numer(); a
Expected:
1.414213562373095
Got:
1.4142135623730951
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 2077:
sage: maxima('exp(-sqrt(x))').nintegral('x',0,1)
Expected:
(.5284822353142306, 4.163314137883845e-11, 231, 0)
Got:
(.5284822353142306, 4.1633141378838445e-11, 231, 0)
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 2131:
sage: f.numer()
Expected:
1.462651745907182
Got:
1.4626517459071817
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 2251:
sage: maxima('sqrt(2) + I').comma('numer')
Expected:
I+1.414213562373095
Got:
I+1.4142135623730951
**********************************************************************
</pre><p>
Numerical and format. The first one should be closely looked at.
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage-main/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py"
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py", line 541:
sage: integrate( (F(x)-G(x))^2, x, -infinity, infinity).n()
Expected:
0
Got:
-6.26376265908397e-17
**********************************************************************
</pre><p>
Numerical noise.
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage-main/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx"
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 5517:
sage: maxima('cosh(1.0)')
Expected:
1.543080634815244
Got:
1.5430806348152437
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 5626:
sage: maxima('asinh(2.0)')
Expected:
1.44363547517881
Got:
1.4436354751788103
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 5680:
sage: maxima('acosh(0.5)')
Expected:
1.047197551196598*%i
Got:
1.0471975511965979*%i
**********************************************************************
</pre><p>
Numerical noise
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage-main/sage/calculus/calculus.py"
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 677:
sage: f.nintegrate(x,0,1)
Expected:
(-480.00000000000011, 5.3290705182007538e-12, 21, 0)
Got:
(-480.00000000000006, 5.3290705182007538e-12, 21, 0)
**********************************************************************
</pre><p>
Numerical noise.
Same as reported by David on sage-devel. It all should be straightforward if tedious.
</p>
TicketfbisseyThu, 10 Feb 2011 22:31:15 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:2
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:2
<p>
Only 4 lines of to comment out for that particular one.
</p>
<pre class="wiki">maxima --very-quiet -r "example("arrays");"
;;; Loading #P"/usr/lib64/ecl-11.1.1/sb-bsd-sockets.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/usr/lib64/ecl-11.1.1/sockets.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/usr/lib64/ecl-11.1.1/defsystem.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/usr/lib64/ecl-11.1.1/cmp.fas"
a[n]:=n*a[n-1]
a := n a
n n - 1
a[0]:1
a[5]
120
a[n]:=n
a[6]
6
a[4]
24
done
</pre><p>
with ecl-10.4.1
</p>
<pre class="wiki">maxima --very-quiet -r "example("arrays");"
;;; Loading #P"/Users/frb15/Desktop/Gentoo/usr/lib/ecl-10.4.1/SB-BSD-SOCKETS.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/Users/frb15/Desktop/Gentoo/usr/lib/ecl-10.4.1/SOCKETS.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/Users/frb15/Desktop/Gentoo/usr/lib/ecl-10.4.1/DEFSYSTEM.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/Users/frb15/Desktop/Gentoo/usr/lib/ecl-10.4.1/cmp.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/Users/frb15/Desktop/Gentoo/usr/lib/ecl-10.4.1/sysfun.lsp"
a[n]:=n*a[n-1]
a := n a
n n - 1
a[0]:1
a[5]
120
a[n]:=n
a[6]
6
a[4]
24
done
</pre>
TicketdrkirkbyThu, 10 Feb 2011 23:21:48 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:3
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:3
<p>
Since a serious problem has been reported with ECL 11.1.1 with both the version of Maxima currently in Sage (5.21.1) as well as the latest Maxima (5.23.2)
</p>
<p>
<a class="ext-link" href="http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2011/023868.html"><span class="icon"></span>http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2011/023868.html</a>
</p>
<p>
we should probably postpone this until a fix is known.
</p>
TicketfbisseyThu, 10 Feb 2011 23:34:26 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:4
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:4
<p>
If you want to wait rather than fixing maxima that's fine. In the meantime I just finished a patch set. So I am attaching it for future reference.
</p>
TicketdrkirkbyThu, 10 Feb 2011 23:42:25 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:5
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:5
<p>
There is apparently a fix in ECL's CVS for this.
</p>
<p>
<a class="ext-link" href="http://www.mail-archive.com/ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00671.html"><span class="icon"></span>http://www.mail-archive.com/ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net/msg00671.html</a>
</p>
<p>
and was due to a typo by the ECL developer. So it should be possible to upgrade ECL to the latest version after the doctest problems are resolved.
</p>
<p>
Dave
</p>
TicketdrkirkbyFri, 11 Feb 2011 00:00:26 GMTdescription changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:6
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:6
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/10766?action=diff&version=6">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketfbisseyFri, 11 Feb 2011 01:04:11 GMTattachment set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
<ul>
<li><strong>attachment</strong>
set to <em>trac_10766-fix_doctest.patch</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
patch to fix the doctest due to ecl-11.1.1 upgrade
</p>
TicketfbisseyFri, 11 Feb 2011 01:16:02 GMTattachment set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
<ul>
<li><strong>attachment</strong>
set to <em>trac_10766-fix_symbolic_integration_integral.patch</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Forgotten one doctest
</p>
TicketfbisseyFri, 11 Feb 2011 01:20:50 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:7
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:7
<p>
Corrected patch for white space problems and found I had forgotten one doctest.
There is an interesting change in behaviour here. In the old test we have
</p>
<pre class="wiki"> sage: integrate( ((F(x)-G(x))^2).expand(), x, -infinity, infinity).n()
-6.26376265908397e-17
sage: integrate( (F(x)-G(x))^2, x, -infinity, infinity).n()
0
</pre><p>
But in the new one the results are not different, expansion or not. So the expression is probably always expanded now.
</p>
TicketfbisseySat, 12 Feb 2011 08:38:36 GMTattachment set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
<ul>
<li><strong>attachment</strong>
set to <em>ecls-11.1.1-cmploc.lisp.patch</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
patch for ecl
</p>
TicketfbisseySat, 12 Feb 2011 08:40:25 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:8
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:8
<p>
Added the patch correcting the problem reported earlier. I got it for the following
commit <a class="ext-link" href="http://ecls.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ecls/ecl;a=commit;h=ce19c67a1b9f63cd232e7c0a621b6ca87aaa7214"><span class="icon"></span>http://ecls.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ecls/ecl;a=commit;h=ce19c67a1b9f63cd232e7c0a621b6ca87aaa7214</a>
</p>
TicketdrkirkbySat, 12 Feb 2011 11:19:52 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:9
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:9
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:8" title="Comment 8">fbissey</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Added the patch correcting the problem reported earlier. I got it for the following
commit <a class="ext-link" href="http://ecls.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ecls/ecl;a=commit;h=ce19c67a1b9f63cd232e7c0a621b6ca87aaa7214"><span class="icon"></span>http://ecls.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ecls/ecl;a=commit;h=ce19c67a1b9f63cd232e7c0a621b6ca87aaa7214</a>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Can you explain how you convert that git patch to one using GNU patch that can be used to update the package - since we have now agreed to make GNU patch a standard package, we should use that to update the file and not use 'cp' as before.
</p>
<p>
Can you post an spkg for review.
</p>
<p>
I've created a ticket for the Maxima upgrade (<a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10773" title="enhancement: Update Maxima to the latest upstream release. (closed: fixed)">#10773</a>) and have posted an .spkg on that ticket, which now needs review.
</p>
<p>
Dave
</p>
TicketfbisseySat, 12 Feb 2011 20:17:22 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:10
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:10
<p>
OK, I will put things in motion to upload an spkg. The patch I posted works fairly well with GNU patch as far as I am concerned. But path may need adjusting to follow standard sage procedure. I'll to look up a spkg that uses patch to make sure.
</p>
TicketfbisseySun, 13 Feb 2011 08:19:50 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:11
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:11
<p>
The new spkg can be found here:
<a class="ext-link" href="http://spkg-upload.googlecode.com/files/ecl-11.1.1.spkg"><span class="icon"></span>http://spkg-upload.googlecode.com/files/ecl-11.1.1.spkg</a>
</p>
<p>
Two more things to really think about: what to do about the symbolic/integration/integral.py test and should we add a test to make sure that the problem solved by the included patch is/stay fixed.
</p>
TicketfbisseySun, 13 Feb 2011 08:42:25 GMTattachment set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766
<ul>
<li><strong>attachment</strong>
set to <em>ecl-11.1.1-update.patch</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
show changes to SPKG.txt, spkg-install and the patch for reviewer only - do not apply.
</p>
TicketkcrismanMon, 14 Feb 2011 13:40:37 GMTcc set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:12
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:12
<ul>
<li><strong>cc</strong>
<em>kcrisman</em> added
</li>
</ul>
TicketkcrismanMon, 14 Feb 2011 13:46:11 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:13
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:13
<p>
Currently testing the ECL/Maxima update here on OS X 10.4 PPC.
</p>
<p>
Just a couple questions - most doctests seem to be fixed with ellipses, but a couple not. Any particular reason? Also, have these been checked on sage.math or some other Linux system, or an Intel system? Just curious.
</p>
<p>
Also, the last patch has the same type of issue as has been raised on sage-devel in the past about 0 versus very small epsilon. I don't know if it's worth bothering about, but anyway in case someone remembers what has been done with such in the past...
</p>
TicketdrkirkbyMon, 14 Feb 2011 15:51:15 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:14
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:14
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:13" title="Comment 13">kcrisman</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Currently testing the ECL/Maxima update here on OS X 10.4 PPC.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Good. Let us know how you got on.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Just a couple questions - most doctests seem to be fixed with ellipses, but a couple not. Any particular reason? Also, have these been checked on sage.math or some other Linux system, or an Intel system? Just curious.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
These ellipses really bother me, as very often we permit changes 1000 or more times greater than necessary. If we expect <code>1.82</code>, but a system gives <code>1.81999999999999</code> then changing the doctest to <code>1.8...</code> is just permitting differences <strong>far</strong> greater than we have observed. That would cause <code>1.85</code> to pass, which seems stupid to me, but it seems to be the Sage way of doing things. As such, I think the doctest changes are ok.
</p>
<p>
Francois checked on an Intel Linux system and got the same results as me on an Intel OpenSolaris system. We have not to my knowledge checked on any other Intel system, such as sage.math.
</p>
<p>
If anything, I would have expected numerical issues to show up on the SPARC processor, as the floating point processor is very different to AMD/Intel. However, there are no issues on SPARC - I checked on t2.math.
</p>
<p>
I think this is a case of where the buildbot can be useful - just test on all machines and note any issues.
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Also, the last patch has the same type of issue as has been raised on sage-devel in the past about 0 versus very small epsilon. I don't know if it's worth bothering about, but anyway in case someone remembers what has been done with such in the past...
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I don't have a strong opinion on this. I think such small numbers can be expected. I think we should report this to the ECL list, as it was the ECL update which caused this, not the Maxima upgrade. But unless the ECL developers acknowledges a bug and fixes it, I would just leave it as it is now.
</p>
TicketdrkirkbyMon, 14 Feb 2011 16:14:02 GMTstatus changed; reviewer, author set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:15
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:15
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>new</em> to <em>needs_review</em>
</li>
<li><strong>reviewer</strong>
set to <em>David Kirkby</em>
</li>
<li><strong>author</strong>
set to <em>François Bissey</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
As far as I'm aware, all the issues are resolved, so this is due for review. I'm personally happy with it, but lets see what happens on PPC before giving it a positive review. If PPC passes ok, then I suggest this gets a positive review.
</p>
<p>
In the event there are issues on one of the buildbot machines, which includes sage.math, we will be made aware of it. There seems no point in testing on lots of machines now, when the buildbot can do it with far less effort.
</p>
<p>
Dave
</p>
TicketjpfloriMon, 14 Feb 2011 17:00:14 GMTcc changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:16
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:16
<ul>
<li><strong>cc</strong>
<em>jpflori</em> added
</li>
</ul>
TicketdrkirkbyMon, 14 Feb 2011 17:49:46 GMTdescription changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:17
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:17
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/10766?action=diff&version=17">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketdrkirkbyMon, 14 Feb 2011 17:52:20 GMTdescription changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:18
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:18
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/10766?action=diff&version=18">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketkcrismanMon, 14 Feb 2011 19:11:29 GMTstatus, reviewer changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:19
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:19
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>needs_review</em> to <em>positive_review</em>
</li>
<li><strong>reviewer</strong>
changed from <em>David Kirkby</em> to <em>David Kirkby, Karl-Dieter Crisman</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Yeah, I looked at the few changes and our patch, and all seems in order. I don't have a problem with any of the doctest changes either, but thought I'd ask since opinions may differ. Passes as many relevant tests as I had time to ask it to do today.
</p>
TicketkcrismanMon, 14 Feb 2011 19:12:06 GMTmilestone changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:20
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:20
<ul>
<li><strong>milestone</strong>
changed from <em>sage-4.6.2</em> to <em>sage-4.7</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
Changing milestone in the hopes it will get in for 4.7 :)
</p>
TicketfbisseyMon, 14 Feb 2011 22:10:04 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:21
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:21
<p>
Since I have put them I think I should explain my choices of ellipses (or not).
</p>
<p>
First we are doing numerical computation here, and as far as I can see, not in arbitrary precision. In that context having a lot of significant figures is usually useless. It just test your FPU and your implementation. So for example we now have
1.5430806348152437 instead of <br />
1.543080634815244, big deal, next iteration will probably have something different there, it may very well revert to print one less decimal which is probably the only difference here. If we had printed as many decimals with the old ecl we may have had the same result. By putting ellipses here I am taking away the last few significant figures which are quite possibly arbitrary. I guess I could check with wolfram alpha at an arbitrary precision as well.
</p>
<p>
If we had something like 1.85 and 1.849999999 that would more problematic. But it is a symptom of the fact that we probably should just test a number of significant figures. Instead of having the raw results print 10 significant figures for example, more if you do arbitrary precision computations.
</p>
<p>
For this one I put the exact answer returned by maxima:
</p>
<pre class="wiki">sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage-main/sage/calculus/calculus.py"
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/share/sage/devel/sage-main/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 677:
sage: f.nintegrate(x,0,1)
Expected:
(-480.00000000000011, 5.3290705182007538e-12, 21, 0)
Got:
(-480.00000000000006, 5.3290705182007538e-12, 21, 0)
**********************************************************************
</pre><p>
I did that because of the text that goes with the test:
</p>
<pre class="wiki"> Despite appearance, `f` is really very close to 0, but one
gets a nonzero value since the definition of
``float(f)`` is that it makes all constants inside the
expression floats, then evaluates each function and each arithmetic
operation using float arithmetic::
sage: float(f)
-480.0
Computing to higher precision we see the truth::
sage: f.n(200)
-7.4992740280181431112064614366622348652078895136533593355718e-13
sage: f.n(300)
-7.49927402801814311120646143662663009137292462589621789352095066181709095575681963967103004e-13
Now numerically integrating, we see why the answer is wrong::
sage: f.nintegrate(x,0,1)
(-480.00000000000006, 5.3290705182007538e-12, 21, 0)
It is just because every floating point evaluation of return -480.0
in floating point.
</pre><p>
I thought it would be best to have the exact value. However anything starting with -480.00 would clearly have been good enough.
</p>
<p>
The test in symbolic/integration/integral.py is more interesting. It documented a behavior of ecl/maxima when you used ".expand" or not and the influence it had on results, before the patch:
</p>
<pre class="wiki"> Check if #6189 is fixed (which, by the way, also
demonstrates it's not always good to expand)::
sage: n = N; n
<function numerical_approx at ...>
sage: F(x) = 1/sqrt(2*pi*1^2)*exp(-1/(2*1^2)*(x-0)^2)
sage: G(x) = 1/sqrt(2*pi*n(1)^2)*exp(-1/(2*n(1)^2)*(x-n(0))^2)
sage: integrate( (F(x)-F(x))^2, x, -infinity, infinity).n()
0.000000000000000
sage: integrate( ((F(x)-G(x))^2).expand(), x, -infinity, infinity).n()
-6.26376265908397e-17
sage: integrate( (F(x)-G(x))^2, x, -infinity, infinity).n()
0
</pre><p>
Now the result is the same whether we expand or not. So the test is <br />
1) moot<br />
2) virtually reopen <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/6189" title="defect: [with patch, positive review] 'integrate' produces incorrect answer (closed: fixed)">#6189</a> since we now always have a non-zero result<br />
I think for this one we need a better example and a way of making this integral behave.
</p>
<p>
In summary most of the numerical noise observed is due to the fact that ecl-11.1.1 print one more decimal place by default. Because this may change and the level of precision doesn't make any sense for most purpose I decided to put ellipses. The more juicy bits where I didn't do that are open to interesting discussion.
</p>
TicketdrkirkbyTue, 15 Feb 2011 01:24:57 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:22
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:22
<h2 id="Notetothereleasemanager">Note to the release manager</h2>
<p>
This must be merged with <a class="closed ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10773" title="enhancement: Update Maxima to the latest upstream release. (closed: fixed)">#10773</a>, which updates Maxima. Updating just Maxima or just ECL will cause problems - they must be done together.
</p>
<p>
Dave
</p>
TicketdrkirkbyTue, 15 Feb 2011 09:07:59 GMTmilestone changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:23
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:23
<ul>
<li><strong>milestone</strong>
changed from <em>sage-4.7</em> to <em>sage-4.6.2</em>
</li>
</ul>
<p>
To my knowledge 4.6.2 is not in any sort of "feature freeze" yet, with no release candidates released - only alphas. So I've set this back to 4.6.2. I've asked on sage-devel if it can go in 4.6.2, but so far no response.
</p>
TicketjpfloriTue, 15 Feb 2011 11:49:36 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:24
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:24
<p>
I installed the new ECL and Maxima spkgs and related patches and ran "make ptest" (running on Ubuntu 10.10, intel x86_64) and everything was fine.
</p>
TicketjdemeyerTue, 15 Feb 2011 13:23:32 GMTmilestone changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:25
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:25
<ul>
<li><strong>milestone</strong>
changed from <em>sage-4.6.2</em> to <em>sage-4.7</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketjpfloriTue, 15 Feb 2011 13:27:20 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:26
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:26
<p>
My bad, I meant everything was ok after successfully building Maxima.
</p>
<p>
To build Maxima, I need to install texinfo package on my system.
</p>
<p>
Afterwards everything runs fine.
</p>
<p>
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
</p>
TicketjdemeyerTue, 15 Feb 2011 13:43:12 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:27
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:27
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:23" title="Comment 23">drkirkby</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
To my knowledge 4.6.2 is not in any sort of "feature freeze" yet, with no release candidates released - only alphas.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
sage-4.6.2.rc0 is scheduled to be tested any time now. So I would rather not merge this in the 4.6.2 cycle (unless you give me a very good reason).
</p>
TicketkcrismanTue, 15 Feb 2011 13:57:37 GMT
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:28
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:28
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:27" title="Comment 27">jdemeyer</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
Replying to <a class="ticket" href="https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:23" title="Comment 23">drkirkby</a>:
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
To my knowledge 4.6.2 is not in any sort of "feature freeze" yet, with no release candidates released - only alphas.
</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>
True, but...
</p>
<blockquote class="citation">
<p>
sage-4.6.2.rc0 is scheduled to be tested any time now. So I would rather not merge this in the 4.6.2 cycle (unless you give me a very good reason).
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Usually spkg upgrades are best for early in the cycle, I agree, especially ones like Maxima that have a fair amount of use. I'm sure this will be first up in 4.7 - assuming we can get the texinfo issue resolved.
</p>
TicketjdemeyerFri, 18 Feb 2011 08:44:14 GMTcomponent changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:29
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:29
<ul>
<li><strong>component</strong>
changed from <em>algebra</em> to <em>packages</em>
</li>
</ul>
TicketjdemeyerTue, 22 Feb 2011 16:44:50 GMTdescription changed
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:30
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:30
<ul>
<li><strong>description</strong>
modified (<a href="/ticket/10766?action=diff&version=30">diff</a>)
</li>
</ul>
TicketjdemeyerTue, 08 Mar 2011 21:47:22 GMTstatus changed; resolution, merged set
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:31
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/10766#comment:31
<ul>
<li><strong>status</strong>
changed from <em>positive_review</em> to <em>closed</em>
</li>
<li><strong>resolution</strong>
set to <em>fixed</em>
</li>
<li><strong>merged</strong>
set to <em>sage-4.7.alpha1</em>
</li>
</ul>
Ticket