Opened 5 years ago

Closed 3 years ago

#18920 closed defect (fixed)

upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.39

Reported by: dimpase Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-7.6
Component: symbolics Keywords:
Cc: rws, jpflori, kcrisman, nbruin, jdemeyer, vbraun, charpent Merged in:
Authors: Dima Pasechnik Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw, Emmanuel Charpentier, François Bissey, Jeroen Demeyer, Nils Bruin
Report Upstream: Fixed upstream, in a later stable release. Work issues:
Branch: a6c51e6 (Commits) Commit: a6c51e6d71ceec22b0f08c28f9a1c29078fe5b14
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by dimpase)

this would fix some bugs, e.g. as reported here.

Attachments (1)

ptestlong.log (360.8 KB) - added by dimpase 3 years ago.
ecl-16.1.3+Maxima 5.39.0

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (158)

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

  • Cc rws added
  • Description modified (diff)

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by fbissey

For info, I have been using ecl 15.3.7 for a while in sage-on-gentoo. That part is a straight upgrade as far as I can see. I do not remember having tried a newer maxima but it usually breaks a lest a couple of doctest.

comment:5 Changed 5 years ago by fbissey

I tried maxima 5.36.0 and reverted (that was with ecl 15.3.7) , not tried 5.36.1 (5.36.0.1 whatever the version number is actually).

     Wed Apr 29 11:14:49 2015 >>> sci-mathematics/maxima-5.35.1-r2
       merge time: 5 minutes and 6 seconds.

     Fri May  1 10:33:58 2015 >>> sci-mathematics/maxima-5.36.0
       merge time: 4 minutes and 52 seconds.

     Fri May  1 10:42:03 2015 >>> sci-mathematics/maxima-5.35.1-r2
       merge time: 5 minutes and 8 seconds.

comment:6 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

  • Branch set to u/dimpase/eclupdate
  • Cc jpflori added
  • Commit set to 045d21eeb356b04102696d1aa51776b1330c635a
  • Description modified (diff)

The branch is currently not working; to build the new ecl pkg, one has to move patches/implib.patch out of the way; I tried porting the latter patch to the new ecl, but it produces a makefile error that I don't understand; anyway, it is cygwin-specific.

I cc its author now. J.-P., any ideas?

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

for the record, I get

...
config.status: creating ecl/config.h
Configuration complete. To build ECL, issue make in this directory.
cd build; make -j1
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/dima/software/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl-15.3.7.p0/src/build'
Makefile:192: *** commands commence before first target.  Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/dima/software/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl-15.3.7.p0/src/build'
make: *** [all] Error 2
Error - Failed to build ECL ... exiting

comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

What I don't understand is whether some patches are in fact results of running autoconf/automake/aclocal on patched configure.ac, Makefile.in, etc.

If yes, then these should be split from the "real" ones to allow for fully automatic creation (and commands needed to run autotools need to be spelled out somewhere in the pkg docs). If no, then I don't see the point of patching configure.ac, Makefile.in, etc in the first place.

comment:9 follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by fbissey

Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.

Getting real autoconf patch and running autotools wouldn't be a bad idea but that means you will need to have autotools installed to run spkg-src. spkg-src will need to be amended accordingly.

comment:10 follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by fbissey

I notice that the gmp patch is against configure.ac while implib is against configure.in the last one is probably wrong.

comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

Replying to fbissey:

I notice that the gmp patch is against configure.ac while implib is against configure.in the last one is probably wrong.

the name has changed in version 15.3.7.

comment:12 follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by fbissey

I am trying to read the stuff from the git commit and of course it is patch of patch, it is not readable as this, you changed it already I see.

comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; follow-ups: Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

Replying to fbissey:

Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.

Getting real autoconf patch and running autotools wouldn't be a bad idea but that means you will need to have autotools installed to run spkg-src. spkg-src will need to be amended accordingly.

spkg-src is outdated anyway.

comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

Replying to fbissey:

I am trying to read the stuff from the git commit and of course it is patch of patch, it is not readable as this, you changed it already I see.

here they are in a more readable way: https://github.com/dimpase/ecl/commits/sagepatches

comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

Replying to dimpase:

Replying to fbissey:

Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.

No, I mean that it is silly and error-prone to rebase by hand patches that are better obtained directly from diffs to output of autoconf/automake/aclocal.

The latter should not be bundled together with the "real" one.

comment:16 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

I have opened https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/93

to hopefully sort out the ECL autotools mess.

comment:17 Changed 5 years ago by fbissey

Sorry I have been too busy today to look further into this. I can reproduce your problem with your branch on my mac. I haven't quite identified yet the guilty makefile. I think the problem is not in the top makefile but in one of the subfolders but I haven't identified which one yet.

comment:18 Changed 5 years ago by fbissey

To complete the answer you got from upstream: automake is not used (not a crime) but ecl also ship some of its dependencies in the pristine tarball and those come with their own build systems which can use automake. Apart from ffi we don't want to care about these I think.

comment:19 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

arrghh, that was me mixing of tabs and spaces in src/Makefile.in patch... Now all seems to work. I'll post an update soon.

OK, and for the record, src/configure is generated by autoreconf, that is, one does not need to rebase the corresponding patch manually.

comment:20 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 045d21eeb356b04102696d1aa51776b1330c635a to 9fc27ca7ba877a83443c61d22542e49d65096404

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

9fc27cafixed broken Makefile.in patch (spaces and tabs don't mix), reorganised patches.

comment:21 Changed 5 years ago by kcrisman

  • Cc kcrisman added

comment:22 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 9fc27ca7ba877a83443c61d22542e49d65096404 to 82fdf0eaa092b63cc98d97b418721795ea6b5081

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

82fdf0eported maxima patches; tarball needs bootstrapping; trivial doctests fix

comment:23 follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

  • Cc nbruin added

New Maxima output sometimes breaks Sage parser, e.g.

sage -t src/sage/calculus/calculus.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 373, in sage.calculus.calculus
Failed example:
    taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 496, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 858, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest sage.calculus.calculus[100]>", line 1, in <module>
        taylor(gamma(Integer(1)/Integer(3)+x),x,Integer(0),Integer(3))
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/calculus/functional.py", line 378, in taylor
        return f.taylor(*args)
      File "sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 4038, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.taylor (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/expression.cpp:23671)
        return self.parent()(l)
      File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 1097, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/parent.c:9546)
        return mor._call_(x)
      File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 237, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.NamedConvertMap._call_ (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:5756)
        cdef Element e = method(C)
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1251, in _symbolic_
        return R(self._sage_())
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1226, in _sage_
        maxima=self.parent())
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1901, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string
        raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s)
    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '(1/432)*(72*gamma(1/3)*(psi[2])(1/3)+((-72)*euler_gamma^3+((-36)*pi*3^(1/2)+(-324)*log(3))*euler_gamma^2+((-108)*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+(-18)*pi^2+(-486)*log(3)^2+(-216)*(psi[1])(1/3))*euler_gamma+((-1)*pi^3+((-81)*log(3)^2+(-36)*(psi[1])(1/3))*pi)*3^(1/2)+(-27)*log(3)*pi^2+(-243)*log(3)^3+(-324)*(psi[1])(1/3)*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^3+(1/24)*((12*euler_gamma^2+(4*pi*3^(1/2)+36*log(3))*euler_gamma+6*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+pi^2+27*log(3)^2+12*(psi[1])(1/3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^2+((-1)/6)*((6*euler_gamma+pi*3^(1/2)+9*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x+gamma(1/3)' in Sage

and

File "src/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1746, in sage.calculus.calculus.symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string
Failed example:
    maxima('3*li[2](u)+8*li[33](exp(u))').sage()
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 496, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 858, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest sage.calculus.calculus.symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string[6]>", line 1, in <module>
        maxima('3*li[2](u)+8*li[33](exp(u))').sage()
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/interface.py", line 1016, in sage
        return self._sage_(*args, **kwds)
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1226, in _sage_
        maxima=self.parent())
      File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1901, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string
        raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s)
    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '8*(li[33])(e^u)+3*(li[2])(u)' in Sage

Is it easy to fix?

comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 ; follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by nbruin

Replying to dimpase:

    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '(1/432)*(72*gamma(1/3)*(psi[2])(1/3)+((-72)*euler_gamma^3+((-36)*pi*3^(1/2)+(-324)*log(3))*euler_gamma^2+((-108)*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+(-18)*pi^2+(-486)*log(3)^2+(-216)*(psi[1])(1/3))*euler_gamma+((-1)*pi^3+((-81)*log(3)^2+(-36)*(psi[1])(1/3))*pi)*3^(1/2)+(-27)*log(3)*pi^2+(-243)*log(3)^3+(-324)*(psi[1])(1/3)*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^3+(1/24)*((12*euler_gamma^2+(4*pi*3^(1/2)+36*log(3))*euler_gamma+6*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+pi^2+27*log(3)^2+12*(psi[1])(1/3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^2+((-1)/6)*((6*euler_gamma+pi*3^(1/2)+9*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x+gamma(1/3)' in Sage

and

    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '8*(li[33])(e^u)+3*(li[2])(u)' in Sage

No, it is not very easy to fix. We rewrite li[n]( to polylog(n, and the same for psi[n]( to psi(n,. This string matching obviously completely breaks if maxima starts spelling this as (li[n])(x). Quite frankly, that's an insane spelling, so perhaps the preferred approach is to clarify with the maxima folks if they really intend this. It might be an unforeseen byproduct of some other change that they prefer to fix themselves, in which case we shouldn't waste time.

If they insist this is a reasonable spelling, I think we can work around it, but it'll be a bit of real work. Note that we can handle calls to parenthesized functions:

sage: from sage.calculus.calculus import symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string as sefms
sage: sefms('(sin)(x)')
sin(x)

so as long as we ensure that expressions like li[n] and psi[n] themselves get parsed to callable functions, we should be OK. Something like this would be OK:

sage: sefms('li[n]')
curried_polylog(n)
sage: sefms('li[n]')(x)
polylog(n,x)
sage: sefms('(li[n])(x)')
polylog(n,x)

Since we cannot really handle square brackets, we'd need to do the li[n]->curried_polylog(n) via a string substitution, but that should be OK. The curried_polylog(n) would just create a symbolic function that, when called with a single argument, would create the appropriate polylog.

The binary conversion sr_to_max in maxima_lib.py shouldn't be affected, unless they have changed their internal representation of polylogarithms.

comment:25 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

I opened https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2998/ to ask about these extra ()...

comment:26 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 82fdf0eaa092b63cc98d97b418721795ea6b5081 to 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

0d0649asome easy doctest fixes

comment:27 follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by jdemeyer

This is bad:

  • build/pkgs/maxima/spkg-install

    diff --git a/build/pkgs/maxima/spkg-install b/build/pkgs/maxima/spkg-install
    index 3c80e5c..b08d0d7 100755
    a b done 
    4747echo
    4848echo "Now configuring Maxima..."
     49./bootstrap
    4950./configure --prefix="$SAGE_LOCAL" --libdir="$SAGE_LOCAL/lib" --enable-ecl git_found=false
    5051check_error "Failed to configure Maxima."

Bootstrapping should ideally be done by upstream. Alternatively, it should be done in spkg-src, but certainly not in spkg-install. Autotools are not a Sage prerequisite.

comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 13 ; follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to dimpase:

spkg-src is outdated anyway.

[citation needed]

comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 27 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

Replying to jdemeyer:

This is bad:

  • build/pkgs/maxima/spkg-install

    diff --git a/build/pkgs/maxima/spkg-install b/build/pkgs/maxima/spkg-install
    index 3c80e5c..b08d0d7 100755
    a b done 
    4747echo
    4848echo "Now configuring Maxima..."
     49./bootstrap
    4950./configure --prefix="$SAGE_LOCAL" --libdir="$SAGE_LOCAL/lib" --enable-ecl git_found=false
    5051check_error "Failed to configure Maxima."

Bootstrapping should ideally be done by upstream. Alternatively, it should be done in spkg-src, but certainly not in spkg-install. Autotools are not a Sage prerequisite.

I am acutely aware of this; upstream is not doing bootstrapping in the release in question. Also, note that the ticket status is "new". I'll sort this out after the bigger issues are fixed.

comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 28 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

Replying to jdemeyer:

Replying to dimpase:

spkg-src is outdated anyway.

[citation needed]

I meant to say that parts of this spkg-src need an update.

comment:31 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

with sf.net back online, one finds there version 5.36.1. Not sure yet how much different it is from 5.36.0.1, which is not official...

5.36.1 has the same issue with too many ()...

Last edited 5 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:32 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

  • Branch changed from u/dimpase/eclupdate to u/dimpase/updateecl
  • Commit changed from 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad to b669a434bdf2f91d21254ccf186bc86396dd4909

New commits:

1a0e5c9initial update; implib.patch is problematic
b669a43fixed broken Makefile.in patch (spaces and tabs don't mix), reorganised patches.

comment:33 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

  • Branch changed from u/dimpase/updateecl to u/dimpase/eclupdate
  • Commit changed from b669a434bdf2f91d21254ccf186bc86396dd4909 to 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad
  • Dependencies set to #18961
  • Description modified (diff)
  • Summary changed from upgrade Maxima and ECL to 5.36.0.1 and 15.3.7, respectively to upgrade Maxima to 5.36.1

I've split the update of ECL to a separate ticket #18961, as it is ready.

comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 24 ; follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

Replying to nbruin:

Replying to dimpase:

The binary conversion sr_to_max in maxima_lib.py shouldn't be affected, unless they have changed their internal representation of polylogarithms.

They say the change is a by-product to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to maxima_lib.py and do not try to deal with this in some other way?

comment:35 in reply to: ↑ 34 ; follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by nbruin

Replying to dimpase:

They say the change is a by-product to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to maxima_lib.py and do not try to deal with this in some other way?

Robert isn't making any statement there about priority. I would not think it's a very low priority, because the current behaviour is tantamount to writing (sin)(x), which is silly. I would not be surprised if in the next couple of weeks, when he has had a chance to think about a solution, he will have a fix. I'm sure it's not hard to fix. It just needs some thought to fix it properly and efficiently.

In terms of total amount of work, I would think introducing "curried" poylog and psi will be less work than eliminating any dependence on string parsing from maxima.

For calculus use, we're already moved entirely to maxima_lib. The library instance just allows two interfaces back and forth: a strings-based one and the binary sr_to_max and max_to_sr one. Moving calculus entirely to sr_to_max is a nice idea in general, and that's a worthwhile project that should be quite doable (we're halfway there already and it didn't take much work to do that). It would mean identifying all remaining places where calculus triggers string conversions and replace those sites with mechanisms comparable to sr_integral, sr_limit, sr_sum etc.

I think it's worthwhile if somehow we do maintain the pexpect interface to maxima as well, even if we don't need it for the calculus functionality in sage proper (and since the strings-based interface in maxima_lib shares nearly all its code with that, we might as well keep that too). Having the pexpect interfaces in sage is a useful feature for communicating with other computer algebra systems.

comment:36 in reply to: ↑ 35 Changed 5 years ago by dimpase

Replying to nbruin:

Replying to dimpase:

They say the change is a by-product to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to maxima_lib.py and do not try to deal with this in some other way?

Robert isn't making any statement there about priority. I would not think it's a very low priority, because the current behaviour is tantamount to writing (sin)(x), which is silly. I would not be surprised if in the next couple of weeks, when he has had a chance to think about a solution, he will have a fix. I'm sure it's not hard to fix. It just needs some thought to fix it properly and efficiently.

he replied, saying that he does not see a way to fix this, and that Sage has to put up with this for the time being.

I'd rather see this fixed im maxima, of course, but this is probably a nontrivial job for a Lisp hacker we don't have...

comment:37 Changed 5 years ago by nbruin

Quick workaround:

ecl_eval("(defprop $LI 210 rbp)")
ecl_eval("(defprop $PSI 210 rbp)")

it certainly avoids the extra parentheses around li and psi invocations. I've reported this workaround on the maxima bugtracker too. Hopefully Robert will comment there about any possible adverse effects. Including these statements in the maxima_calculus initialization in maxima_lib.py might do the trick (and possibly the change is accepted upstream!)

EDIT: A better and more universal change is probably:

ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 190 lbp)")

This way it applies to all "MQAPPLY" calls. That could be problematic, of course, but it doesn't seem to be, probably because 190 is still high enough. Things go wrong if you go too low:

sage: maxima_calculus("(a+b)(t)")
(b+a)(t)
sage: ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 1 lbp)")
<ECL: 1>
sage: maxima_calculus("(a+b)(t)")
b+a(t)
Last edited 5 years ago by nbruin (previous) (diff)

comment:38 Changed 5 years ago by nbruin

Of course, the expression type that gets constructed for li and psi is more general:

sage: maxima_calculus("a[1](x)")
a[1](x)
sage: maxima_calculus("a[1](x)").ecl()
<ECL: ((MQAPPLY SIMP) (($A SIMP ARRAY) 1) $X)>

but we already fail with that (because we carefully only convert li[ and psi[):

sage: SR(maxima_calculus("a[1](x)"))
TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'a[1](x)' in Sage

Since square brackets are really part of Maxima's expression syntax, the proper solution would be to have a parser that can handle them. The following seems valid maxima:

sage: maxima_calculus("(sin(x)+cos(y))[tan(u)[3/(a+b)]+log(w)](t)")
(cos(y)+sin(x))[log(w)+tan(u)[3/(b+a)]](t)

and parsing that with anything less than parser support for [ will be. Of course, without [] support on the side of pynac, we'd have to parse a[n] to something like get_item(a,n) but that would be fine (and then get_item can have the right logic to actually resolve in relevant cases, but this would be more an extension of our symbolic expressions before it's a parsing issue for maxima)

comment:39 Changed 5 years ago by nbruin

The maxima ticket https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2998/ is now marked as resolved, so with any luck, the extra parentheses issue will not occur with the new maxima release.

The fix implemented is indeed ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 190 lbp)"), so if you do not want to wait for the next maxima release, just put this command in the initialization section of maxima_lib.

comment:40 Changed 5 years ago by pbruin

  • Report Upstream changed from N/A to Not yet reported upstream; Will do shortly.

I tried upgrading to Maxima 5.37.0 (released 17 August). The formatting problem is fixed, although some of the output still looks slightly different (more/fewer parentheses, different ordering of terms in some polynomials).

However, there is a serious bug in the function eigenvectors causing too few eigenvectors to be returned:

(%i1) M: matrix([1, 1, 0], [0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 2]);
                                  [ 1  1  0 ]
                                  [         ]
(%o1)                             [ 0  1  0 ]
                                  [         ]
                                  [ 0  0  2 ]

Maxima 5.35.1 computes the eigenvalues and eigenvectors correctly:

(%i2) eigenvectors(M);
(%o2)           [[[1, 2], [2, 1]], [[[1, 0, 0]], [[0, 0, 1]]]]

In Maxima 5.37.0, the eigenvector [0, 0, 1] is missing:

(%i2) eigenvectors(M);
(%o2)                  [[[1, 2], [2, 1]], [[[1, 0, 0]]]]

I found this out through several doctest failures in Sage.

comment:41 Changed 5 years ago by pbruin

  • Report Upstream changed from Not yet reported upstream; Will do shortly. to Reported upstream. No feedback yet.

comment:42 follow-up: Changed 4 years ago by tscrim

It seems that version 5.38 was released a few months ago, and we are currently at 5.35.1. I think we can upgrade now since the reported bug was fixed.

comment:43 Changed 4 years ago by tscrim

  • Cc jdemeyer vbraun added
  • Milestone changed from sage-6.8 to sage-7.3
  • Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.

comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 42 Changed 4 years ago by pbruin

Replying to tscrim:

It seems that version 5.38 was released a few months ago, and we are currently at 5.35.1. I think we can upgrade now since the reported bug was fixed.

Note that the bug fix is only in the development branch, not in 5.38.1. We can of course add the relevant upstream commit (3e4e107) as a patch.

comment:45 Changed 4 years ago by tscrim

Shall we then move forward then with upgrading to 5.38.1 with backporting 3e4e107 as a patch? Or should we ask the Maxima team to see how close they are to cutting a 5.38.2?

comment:46 Changed 4 years ago by dimpase

  • Milestone changed from sage-7.3 to sage-7.4
  • Summary changed from upgrade Maxima to 5.36.1 to upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.38.1

it's about time. Should I have a go at it?

comment:47 Changed 3 years ago by thansen

Please do. We have to make sagemath 7.4 work with maxima 5.38.1 in Debian and it would help if we had a patch that we could backport.

comment:48 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

Dima, can you rebase your branch?

comment:49 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Will try later today.

comment:50 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Branch changed from u/dimpase/eclupdate to public/t18920
  • Commit changed from 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad to 231002039aeed3f1926ec58804bd538b5ec9385d
  • Dependencies #18961 deleted

rebased the relevant patches


New commits:

ee327bcported maxima patches; tarball needs bootstrapping; trivial doctests fix
2310020some easy doctest fixes

comment:51 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Work issues set to rebase the rest of Maxima patches

So far, only the relevant commits from the old branch are rebased. I still have to fix patches to Maxima sources -- they don't apply cleanly.

comment:52 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

We'll also want to move to maxima 5.38.1 at least.

comment:53 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 231002039aeed3f1926ec58804bd538b5ec9385d to a4bf7166892c6dae760cd2cd1c84f5cb9675ef15

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

a4bf716rebased patches, added eigenvectors patch too

comment:54 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Authors set to Dima Pasechnik
  • Description modified (diff)
  • Milestone changed from sage-7.4 to sage-7.5
  • Work issues changed from rebase the rest of Maxima patches to fix doctests, if any.

comment:55 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

this seems to be a change:

File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 210, in sage.interfaces.maxima
Failed example:
    g.taylor('x', 0, 3)
Expected:
    x+x^3/6+(3*x^5)/40+(5*x^7)/112+(35*x^9)/1152
Got:
    f/(k^4*x^4)-(2*f)/((3*k^2)*x^2)+(11*f)/45-((62*k^2*f)*x^2)/945

there f is defined as f=maxima(`1/x^2`), so this no longer works, defining maxima functions this way.

Anyhow, I'm pushing the other doctest changes for this file, and few other.

comment:56 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from a4bf7166892c6dae760cd2cd1c84f5cb9675ef15 to 62b5825544b467e481c7a752604b8d45c64d9752

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

62b5825some more easy doctest fixes

comment:57 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

the following looks to me like a regression (or perhaps it's not really, as if one picked the right branches of the corresponding complex variable functions, it would be correct) :

File "src/sage/calculus/tests.py", line 107, in sage.calculus.tests
Failed example:
    integrate(log(1-x^2)/x, x)
Expected:
    1/2*log(x^2)*log(-x^2 + 1) + 1/2*polylog(2, -x^2 + 1)
Got:
    log(-x)*log(x + 1) + log(x)*log(-x + 1) + polylog(2, x + 1) + polylog(2, -x + 1)

New commits:

62b5825some more easy doctest fixes

comment:58 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

and another regression of sorts: despite besselexpand set to False, one gets

File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 66, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib
Failed example:
    sum((-x)^n/(factorial(n)*factorial(n+3/2)),n,0,oo)
Expected:
    bessel_J(3/2, 2*sqrt(x))/x^(3/4)
Got:
    -1/2*(2*x*cos(2*sqrt(x)) - sqrt(x)*sin(2*sqrt(x)))/(sqrt(pi)*x^2)

Perhaps it's a deficiency of our test, which is too simple for besselexpand to kick in.

comment:59 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

this one needs work:

File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.Ma
ximaLib.sr_integral
Failed example:
    integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x-5)), x, -5, 6)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
    ...
    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if(-(_SAGE_VAR_x-5)>0,-log(6-_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x-4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,-5,plus)' in Sage

comment:60 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

and this one is puzzling on the Sage side:

File "src/sage/misc/functional.py", line 658, in sage.misc.functional.integral
Failed example:
    _ = integrate(y, x, -1000, 1000)
Exception raised:
...
    FloatingPointError: Floating point exception

and comes from a regression in Maxima/ECL version combo (I did check that with Maxima 5.38.1 running on SBCL 1.3.6 this integral computes just fine).

Maxima 5.38.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
using Lisp ECL 16.1.2
Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information.
(%i1) integrate((x^2)*exp(x) / (1 + exp(x))^2,x,-1000,1000);

Maxima encountered a Lisp error:

 #<a ARITHMETIC-ERROR>

Automatically continuing.
To enable the Lisp debugger set *debugger-hook* to nil.
Last edited 3 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:61 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

this one needs an expert opinion:

File "src/sage/schemes/projective/projective_morphism.py", line 853, in sage.schemes.projective.projective_morphism.SchemeMorphism_polynomial_projective_space.dynatomic_polynomial
Failed example:
    f.dynatomic_polynomial(2)
Expected:
    0.666666666666667*x^2 + 0.333333333333333*y^2
Got:
    2.00000000000000*x^2 + 0.999999999999999*y^2

The output is clearly different, but perhaps it's OK, I don't know---I suspect it's OK, as we must be interested in the projective points where it vanishes(?) - documentation talks about "roots" though, and these, projectively, remain the same.

Last edited 3 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:62 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 62b5825544b467e481c7a752604b8d45c64d9752 to 9ef994d79cfe0af28d17d0951b709576647a4231

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

9ef994dmore easy doctest fixes

comment:63 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

setting this to "needs review", so that the issues I raised in comments can be discussed.

There are still few easy doctest fixes to be done, I'll do them.

comment:64 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 9ef994d79cfe0af28d17d0951b709576647a4231 to 3c280228256c02dcba6e6a8df2bcb98625031613

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

3c28022more easy doctest fixes

comment:65 in reply to: ↑ 60 ; follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to dimpase:

regression in Maxima/ECL version combo (I did check that with Maxima 5.38.1 running on SBCL 1.3.6 this integral computes just fine).

I opened https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3235/

comment:66 in reply to: ↑ 65 ; follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to dimpase:

Replying to dimpase:

regression in Maxima/ECL version combo (I did check that with Maxima 5.38.1 running on SBCL 1.3.6 this integral computes just fine).

I opened https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3235/

Robert Dodier has traced this down to a problem with ECL, see https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/299

ECL has a problem comparing their own (there is no Common Lisp standard for this) infinity constants with 1/1000000...

comment:67 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 3c280228256c02dcba6e6a8df2bcb98625031613 to 100d9d6516e4bcfbb93ee979f086f52072ace786

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

5d86413Merge branch 'public/t18920' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into max5381
100d9d6workaround for #<a ARITHMETIC-ERROR> (18920#comment:60

comment:68 in reply to: ↑ 66 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to dimpase:

Replying to dimpase:

Replying to dimpase:

regression in Maxima/ECL version combo (I did check that with Maxima 5.38.1 running on SBCL 1.3.6 this integral computes just fine).

I opened https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3235/

Robert Dodier has traced this down to a problem with ECL, see https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/299

ECL has a problem comparing their own (there is no Common Lisp standard for this) infinity constants with 1/1000000...

this is fixed by Maxima people, and in the latest commit 100d9d6

comment:69 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 100d9d6516e4bcfbb93ee979f086f52072ace786 to 814e8edc2eb51ba9706c122a39bf75d3c77e141c

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

79eb82ffix for maxima bug #3236
814e8edreflect patch's dependence on an earlier maxima tree commit

comment:70 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 814e8edc2eb51ba9706c122a39bf75d3c77e141c to af7e5ff2e30dfed8bcb4c597403a6a23eb93b86a

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

af7e5ffnew scaling of dynatomic polynomial

comment:71 in reply to: ↑ 67 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to git:

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

5d86413Merge branch 'public/t18920' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into max5381
100d9d6workaround for #<a ARITHMETIC-ERROR> (18920#comment:60

this workaround turned out to be buggy, and anyway ECL has released a fix for this problem, making the workaround not necessary. (But it would need an update of our ECL package, as it does depend upon a number of changes, see https://gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/issues/299; they promise a new release by the end of the year).

Should we wait, or should we proceed?

comment:72 Changed 3 years ago by tscrim

I think we should either backport the fix as a patch to ECL or perhaps take a development cut.

comment:73 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by jpflori

I would go for the first option which looks easier: just put the ECL patch into build/pkgs/ecl/patches.

comment:74 Changed 3 years ago by jpflori

There is the issue that you have to force an ECL rebuild. Add a p(n+1) suffix in package-version.txt?

comment:75 in reply to: ↑ 73 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to jpflori:

I would go for the first option which looks easier: just put the ECL patch into build/pkgs/ecl/patches.

a single patch is not enough. In fact, it hangs the ECL build if I do this. ECL people say the have worked on a number of related things, that is support of IEEE floats, since the release, so the latest fix relies on these. A proper ECL update is the only way I think.

comment:76 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

We may have to wait. I could try a git snapshot in sage-on-gentoo to see how things are going but I am overloaded as it is. I have to draw the line somewhere.

comment:77 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by infinity0

Hi, we're following this ticket very closely in Debian. I notice that the following two patches are still applicable to 5.38.1:

Have these patches been forwarded upstream yet? Would they be suitable for other users of Maxima, or are they only useful for Sage?

comment:78 in reply to: ↑ 77 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to infinity0:

Hi, we're following this ticket very closely in Debian. I notice that the following two patches are still applicable to 5.38.1:

this one comes from upstream, from here: https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2520/#e3a5 (so it's sort of unfinished digging on the maxima side; it's definitely useful outside of Sage)

this is also from upstream (updated somewhat): https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2596/

again, upstream still has it open.

comment:79 follow-ups: Changed 3 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
  • Work issues changed from fix doctests, if any. to fix doctests
sage -t --long src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 210, in sage.interfaces.maxima
Failed example:
    g.taylor('x', 0, 3)
Expected:
    x+x^3/6+(3*x^5)/40+(5*x^7)/112+(35*x^9)/1152
Got:
    f/(k^4*x^4)-(2*f)/((3*k^2)*x^2)+(11*f)/45-((62*k^2*f)*x^2)/945
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  96 in sage.interfaces.maxima
    [182 tests, 1 failure, 10.65 s]
sage -t --long src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py", line 535, in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative
Failed example:
    b = maxima(a); b
Expected:
    %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),[_SAGE_VAR_t0=%e^_SAGE_VAR_x])
Got:
    %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),_SAGE_VAR_t0=%e^_SAGE_VAR_x)
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py", line 544, in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative
Failed example:
    b = maxima(a); b
Expected:
    %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),[_SAGE_VAR_t0=4])
Got:
    %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),_SAGE_VAR_t0=4)
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py", line 564, in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative
Failed example:
    b = maxima(a); b
Expected:
    %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0,_SAGE_VAR_t1),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),[_SAGE_VAR_t0=4,_SAGE_VAR_t1=_SAGE_VAR_y])
Got:
    %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0,_SAGE_VAR_y),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),_SAGE_VAR_t0=4)
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py", line 573, in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative
Failed example:
    b = maxima(a); b
Expected:
    %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0,_SAGE_VAR_t1),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),[_SAGE_VAR_t0=4,_SAGE_VAR_t1=8])
Got:
    %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0,8),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),_SAGE_VAR_t0=4)
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   4 of  37 in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative
    [462 tests, 4 failures, 5.14 s]
sage -t --long src/sage/calculus/tests.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/calculus/tests.py", line 107, in sage.calculus.tests
Failed example:
    integrate(log(1-x^2)/x, x)
Expected:
    1/2*log(x^2)*log(-x^2 + 1) + 1/2*polylog(2, -x^2 + 1)
Got:
    log(-x)*log(x + 1) + log(x)*log(-x + 1) + polylog(2, x + 1) + polylog(2, -x + 1)
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  83 in sage.calculus.tests
    [82 tests, 1 failure, 8.56 s]
sage -t --long src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 66, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib
Failed example:
    sum((-x)^n/(factorial(n)*factorial(n+3/2)),n,0,oo)
Expected:
    bessel_J(3/2, 2*sqrt(x))/x^(3/4)
Got:
    -1/2*(2*x*cos(2*sqrt(x)) - sqrt(x)*sin(2*sqrt(x)))/(sqrt(pi)*x^2)
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral
Failed example:
    integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x-5)), x, -5, 6)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 498, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 861, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral[12]>", line 1, in <module>
        integrate(Integer(1) / (Integer(1) + abs(x-Integer(5))), x, -Integer(5), Integer(6))
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/misc/functional.py", line 662, in integral
        return x.integral(*args, **kwds)
      File "sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 11624, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.integral (/usr/local/src/sage-config/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/expression.cpp:64315)
        return integral(self, *args, **kwds)
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py", line 777, in integrate
        return definite_integral(expression, v, a, b, hold=hold)
      File "sage/symbolic/function.pyx", line 995, in sage.symbolic.function.BuiltinFunction.__call__ (/usr/local/src/sage-config/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/function.cpp:11329)
        res = super(BuiltinFunction, self).__call__(
      File "sage/symbolic/function.pyx", line 485, in sage.symbolic.function.Function.__call__ (/usr/local/src/sage-config/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/function.cpp:6372)
        res = g_function_evalv(self._serial, vec, hold)
      File "sage/symbolic/function.pyx", line 1084, in sage.symbolic.function.BuiltinFunction._evalf_or_eval_ (/usr/local/src/sage-config/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/function.cpp:12689)
        return self._eval0_(*args)
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py", line 178, in _eval_
        return integrator(*args)
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/integration/external.py", line 24, in maxima_integrator
        result = maxima.sr_integral(expression, v, a, b)
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 799, in sr_integral
        return max_to_sr(maxima_eval(([max_integrate],[sr_to_max(SR(a)) for a in args])))
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 1672, in max_to_sr
        args=[max_to_sr(a) for a in max_args]
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 1672, in max_to_sr
        args=[max_to_sr(a) for a in max_args]
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 1663, in max_to_sr
        sage_expr=SR(maxima(expr))
      File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 953, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (/usr/local/src/sage-config/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/parent.c:9849)
        return mor._call_(x)
      File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 238, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.NamedConvertMap._call_ (/usr/local/src/sage-config/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:6388)
        cdef Element e = method(C)
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1255, in _symbolic_
        return R(self._sage_())
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1230, in _sage_
        maxima=self.parent())
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1897, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string
        raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s)
    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if(-(_SAGE_VAR_x-5)>0,-log(6-_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x-4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,-5,plus)' in Sage
**********************************************************************

comment:80 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Some of these doctests are solely Maxima's regressions, one is fixable via a ECL update. I can just mark them appropriately and proceed, if this is acceptable.

comment:81 in reply to: ↑ 79 ; follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by rws

Replying to jdemeyer:

File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral
Failed example:
    integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x-5)), x, -5, 6)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
...
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1897, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string
        raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s)
    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if(-(_SAGE_VAR_x-5)>0,-log(6-_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x-4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,-5,plus)' in Sage
**********************************************************************

This is both #17892 and #20191, because the result changed, presumably to something more correct that needs these symbolic functions we don't have atm.

comment:82 in reply to: ↑ 81 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to rws:

Replying to jdemeyer:

File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral
Failed example:
    integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x-5)), x, -5, 6)
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
...
      File "/usr/local/src/sage-config/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1897, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string
        raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s)
    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if(-(_SAGE_VAR_x-5)>0,-log(6-_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x-4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,-5,plus)' in Sage
**********************************************************************

This is both #17892 and #20191, because the result changed, presumably to something more correct that needs these symbolic functions we don't have atm.

I think this one is a new Maxima bug: https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3237/ - still under investigation by Maxima people.

comment:83 in reply to: ↑ 79 Changed 3 years ago by rws

Replying to jdemeyer:

sage -t --long src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 210, in sage.interfaces.maxima
Failed example:
    g.taylor('x', 0, 3)
Expected:
    x+x^3/6+(3*x^5)/40+(5*x^7)/112+(35*x^9)/1152
Got:
    f/(k^4*x^4)-(2*f)/((3*k^2)*x^2)+(11*f)/45-((62*k^2*f)*x^2)/945

That's odd. The doctest skipped to the next result line which is of course different.

I think this one is a new Maxima bug: ​https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3237/ - still under investigation by Maxima people.

Looking more closely, I agree.

comment:84 Changed 3 years ago by paulmasson

  • Cc paulmasson added

comment:85 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

ecl 16.1.3 is out. I haven't checked yet if all we want is in there but I will look int it.

comment:86 Changed 3 years ago by jdemeyer

If possible, do the ECL upgrade in a new ticket.

comment:87 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

Considering the havoc it wrecks in the building of the documentation it deserves its own ticket. Surprisingly, I haven't spotted libecl in the numerous backtraces produced before the build petered out. But that's the only thing I changed from one successful build to this one.

comment:88 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Milestone changed from sage-7.5 to sage-7.6

comment:89 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Dependencies set to #22191
  • Description modified (diff)
  • Summary changed from upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.38.1 to upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.39

maxima 5.39.0 has been released. ECL upgrade is happening on #22191.

comment:90 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from af7e5ff2e30dfed8bcb4c597403a6a23eb93b86a to 6bae4b1c1c95c08233c8b36a62baaff1bbc9a428

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

eff6081update ECL to 16.1.3 - most of our patches are obsolete
68da1e4Merge branch 'public/t18920' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into ecl1613
6bae4b1bumped up for 5.39.0. Sage builds (with ecl 16.1.3)

comment:91 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

On this branch, the following works at the prompt:

sage: K.<i> = NumberField(x^2+1)
sage: (6*i + 6).factor()
(-i) * (i + 1)^3 * 3

but crashes in testing:

Using --optional=mpir,python2,sage
Doctesting 1 file using 8 threads.
sage -t src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", line 1752, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor
Failed example:
    (6*i + 6).factor()
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 498, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 861, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor[1]>", line 1, in <module>
        (Integer(6)*i + Integer(6)).factor()
      File "sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", line 1782, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor (build/cythonized/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.cpp:19881)
        if not P.is_principal():
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1115, in is_principal
        self._cache_bnfisprincipal(proof)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1058, in _cache_bnfisprincipal
        bnf = self.number_field().pari_bnf(proof)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 3603, in pari_bnf
        self._pari_bnf = f.bnfinit(1)
      File "sage/libs/cypari2/auto_gen.pxi", line 2984, in sage.libs.cypari2.gen.gen_auto.bnfinit (build/cythonized/sage/libs/cypari2/gen.c:17894)
        sig_on()
      File "src/cysignals/signals.pyx", line 105, in cysignals.signals.sig_raise_exception (build/src/cysignals/signals.c:1519)
    FloatingPointError: Floating point exception
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of   8 in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor
    [1051 tests, 1 failure, 10.88 s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage -t src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx  # 1 doctest failed

Looks like the testing environment is a bit shot, but I cannot figure out why.

comment:92 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

here we get fp exception instead of ArithmeticError

File "src/sage/arith/misc.py", line 2696, in sage.arith.misc.is_squarefree
Failed example:
    is_squarefree(a - 3)
Expected:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
    ...
    ArithmeticError: non-principal ideal in factorization
Got:
    <BLANKLINE>
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 498, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 861, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest sage.arith.misc.is_squarefree[13]>", line 1, in <module>
        is_squarefree(a - Integer(3))
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/arith/misc.py", line 2711, in is_squarefree
        return all(r[1] == 1 for r in factor(n))
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/arith/misc.py", line 2479, in factor
        return n.factor(**kwds)
      File "sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", line 1782, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor (build/cythonized/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.cpp:19881)
        if not P.is_principal():
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1115, in is_principal
        self._cache_bnfisprincipal(proof)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1058, in _cache_bnfisprincipal
        bnf = self.number_field().pari_bnf(proof)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 3603, in pari_bnf
        self._pari_bnf = f.bnfinit(1)
      File "sage/libs/cypari2/auto_gen.pxi", line 2984, in sage.libs.cypari2.gen.gen_auto.bnfinit (build/cythonized/sage/libs/cypari2/gen.c:17894)
        sig_on()
      File "src/cysignals/signals.pyx", line 105, in cysignals.signals.sig_raise_exception (build/src/cysignals/signals.c:1519)
    FloatingPointError: Floating point exception

comment:93 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Is the following a regression in Maxima?:

sage -t --warn-long 87.4 src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 10600, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.solve
Failed example:
    solve(Q*sqrt(Q^2 + 2) - 1, Q, to_poly_solve=True)
Expected:
    [Q == 1/sqrt(-sqrt(2) + 1), Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) + 1)]
Got:
    [Q == -sqrt(-sqrt(2) - 1)]

comment:94 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

The following works at the prompt:

sage: F.<omega> = NumberField(x^2+x+1)
sage: xx = polygen(F)
sage: ps = [p for p, _ in F(7).factor()]
sage: ps
[-3*omega - 2, 3*omega + 1]

but crashes in testing:

sage -t --warn-long 87.4 src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 1246, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic
Failed example:
    ps = [p for p, _ in F(7).factor()]
Exception raised:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 498, in _run
        self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 861, in compile_and_execute
        exec(compiled, globs)
      File "<doctest sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic[43]>", line 1, in <module>
        ps = [p for p, _ in F(Integer(7)).factor()]
      File "sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", line 1782, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor (build/cythonized/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.cpp:19881)
        if not P.is_principal():
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1115, in is_principal
        self._cache_bnfisprincipal(proof)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1058, in _cache_bnfisprincipal
        bnf = self.number_field().pari_bnf(proof)
      File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 3603, in pari_bnf
        self._pari_bnf = f.bnfinit(1)
      File "sage/libs/cypari2/auto_gen.pxi", line 2984, in sage.libs.cypari2.gen.gen_auto.bnfinit (build/cythonized/sage/libs/cypari2/gen.c:17894)
        sig_on()
      File "src/cysignals/signals.pyx", line 105, in cysignals.signals.sig_raise_exception (build/src/cysignals/signals.c:1519)
    FloatingPointError: Floating point exception

comment:95 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

This works at the prompt (with a good plot, too):

sage: plot(bessel_Y(1,x), (x,0,5), color='blue')
Launched png viewer for Graphics object consisting of 1 graphics primitive

but dumps core in testing:

sage -t src/sage/functions/bessel.py
...

sage: plot(bessel_Y(1,x), (x,0,5), color='blue') ## line 513 ##
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cysignals/signals.so(+0x4495)[0x7f677f921495]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cysignals/signals.so(+0x44e5)[0x7f677f9214e5]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cysignals/signals.so(+0x7e38)[0x7f677f924e38]
/lib64/libpthread.so.0(+0x10a00)[0x7f678c3d2a00]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libmpfr.so.4(mpfr_get_d+0x217)[0x7f6774bafd97]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/rings/real_mpfr.so(+0x11bd7)[0x7f6578157bd7]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyNumber_Float+0x2b)[0x7f678c6335cb]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x82ed5)[0x7f678c662ed5]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0xbeae3)[0x7f678c69eae3]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/libs/mpmath/utils.so(+0x765e)[0x7f6577a9265e]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/libs/mpmath/utils.so(+0xe0ee)[0x7f6577a990ee]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x7ce1)[0x7f678c6ec461]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x65f7c)[0x7f678c645f7c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/function.so(+0xad3f)[0x7f655d2b8d3f]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/function.so(+0x23cd1)[0x7f655d2d1cd1]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/function.so(+0xad3f)[0x7f655d2b8d3f]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/function.so(+0x2a868)[0x7f655d2d8868]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords+0x47)[0x7f678c6e4187]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/ext/interpreters/wrapper_py.so(interp_py+0x398)[0x7f654092e1a8]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/ext/interpreters/wrapper_py.so(+0x391b)[0x7f654091e91b]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x56da)[0x7f678c6e9e5a]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x18aa)[0x7f678c6e602a]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x18aa)[0x7f678c6e602a]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/expression.so(+0x1a03f)[0x7f655dde203f]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/symbolic/expression.so(+0x343de)[0x7f655ddfc3de]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x625b)[0x7f678c6ea9db]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x18aa)[0x7f678c6e602a]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCode+0x19)[0x7f678c6ee139]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x7428)[0x7f678c6ebba8]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85d7c)[0x7f678c665d7c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x65f7c)[0x7f678c645f7c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0xc20b5)[0x7f678c6a20b5]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x56da)[0x7f678c6e9e5a]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8271)[0x7f678c6ec9f1]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85d7c)[0x7f678c665d7c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x65f7c)[0x7f678c645f7c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0xc24fd)[0x7f678c6a24fd]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0xbeb2f)[0x7f678c69eb2f]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x56da)[0x7f678c6e9e5a]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8271)[0x7f678c6ec9f1]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCode+0x19)[0x7f678c6ee139]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyRun_FileExFlags+0x8a)[0x7f678c7121da]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags+0xd7)[0x7f678c713587]
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(Py_Main+0xc3e)[0x7f678c729c4e]
/lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f678b918580]
python(_start+0x29)[0x400759]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attaching gdb to process id 25288.

Saved trace to /home/scratch/dimpase/.sage/crash_logs/crash_vEDCJn.log
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhandled SIGFPE: An unhandled floating point exception occurred.
This probably occurred because a *compiled* module has a bug
in it and is not properly wrapped with sig_on(), sig_off().
Python will now terminate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

**********************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage -t src/sage/functions/bessel.py  # Killed due to floating point exception

comment:96 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_info

I think I need an idea what's wrong here, before being able to go forward. This discrepancy between testsuite vs prompt is really odd.

comment:97 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 6bae4b1c1c95c08233c8b36a62baaff1bbc9a428 to 44da831e63daba36b44eedb719044ea67f5f362e

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

44da831version number in tests

comment:98 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

here is a bad one - reproducible on two different systems; I don't understand what's going on here; it appears that computing g(x), the Taylor expansion of log(x), breaks log(x) plotting (in case the leftmost interval point is 0).

Probably this initialises some symbolics, breaking handling of infinity in the process...

sage: plot(log(x),(x,0,2))
Launched png viewer for Graphics object consisting of 1 graphics primitive
sage: g(x)=taylor(log(x),x,1,6); g
x |--> -1/6*(x - 1)^6 + 1/5*(x - 1)^5 - 1/4*(x - 1)^4 + 1/3*(x - 1)^3 - 1/2*(x - 1)^2 + x - 1
sage: plot(log(x),(x,0,2))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/cysignals/signals.so(+0x4495)[0x7f5dbb0d9495]
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unhandled SIGFPE: An unhandled floating point exception occurred.
This probably occurred because a *compiled* module has a bug
in it and is not properly wrapped with sig_on(), sig_off().
Python will now terminate.

New commits:

44da831version number in tests
Last edited 3 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:99 in reply to: ↑ 98 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to dimpase:

here is a bad one - reproducible on two different systems; I don't understand what's going on here; it appears that computing g(x), the Taylor expansion of log(x), breaks log(x) plotting (in case the leftmost interval point is 0).

Probably this initialises some symbolics, breaking handling of infinity in the process...

Further entry point - the crash does not happen if I revert back to ECL 16.1.2. (and keep new Maxima version). That is, it seems that the call to taylor loads ecl+maxima, and sets up some stuff that is responsible for handling infinities.

comment:100 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

I think a number of things point back to ecl-16.1.3 so it may belong to #22191. I remember having a lot of similar stuff when changing just ecl without change maxima (still need a rebuild though) in sage-on-gentoo. Right now I am just locked on 16.1.2.

comment:101 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 44da831e63daba36b44eedb719044ea67f5f362e to 530a89ec77171bb371e5244974187204a72eba32

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

ac8348cdisable SIGFPE traps
530a89eMerge branch 'public/t18920' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into ecl1613

comment:102 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

the last commit appears to fix the SIGFPE problem. More testing...

comment:103 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 530a89ec77171bb371e5244974187204a72eba32 to 1b821c4d8c75c5a5e33564c23753e89c72643bee

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

1b821c4easy doctest fixes

comment:104 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_info to needs_work

still a couple of SIGFPEs to figure out, but otherwise does not look too bad. I'll post ptestlong results later today.

Last edited 3 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:105 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

SIGFPEs are of the same sort as above:

sage: g(x)=taylor(log(x),x,1,6) # this initialises ECL/Maxima
sage: q = (2^53) * 2^971/1
sage: float(q) # boom, instead of "inf" as the answer.
...
Unhandled SIGFPE: An unhandled floating point exception occurred.
...

which I traced down to the call to ldexp at sage/rings/rational.pyx:3799. Note that this is with ​ac8348c commit already in (and so ECL_OPT_TRAP_SIGFPE = 0), so there is more of the same kind of story as above, but harder. I don't see what's going wrong here now.

This is a different to division by 0 kind of FPE, so this is perhaps the reason.

Last edited 3 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

ecl-16.1.3+Maxima 5.39.0

comment:106 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Branch changed from public/t18920 to public/maxima5390
  • Commit changed from 1b821c4d8c75c5a5e33564c23753e89c72643bee to 945086147176055ab0a35d41425cfb10783aeb51
  • Dependencies #22191 deleted

I've decided to stick to ECL 16.1.2 for this ticket. (ECL 16.1.3 has a problem that cannot be fixed quickly, and benefits of using it here are pretty minimal).


Last 10 new commits:

4163ef8rebased patches, added eigenvectors patch too
5b9a7afsome more easy doctest fixes
da15a6dmore easy doctest fixes
4ea0e8eworkaround for #<a ARITHMETIC-ERROR> (18920#comment:60
7c7a0f3fix for maxima bug #3236
4377282reflect patch's dependence on an earlier maxima tree commit
29f595anew scaling of dynatomic polynomial
7577f86bumped up for 5.39.0. Sage builds (with ecl 16.1.3)
759104aversion number in tests
9450861easy doctest fixes

comment:107 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 945086147176055ab0a35d41425cfb10783aeb51 to 3e1dcefdd891434a777c426dc0f784c7091219af

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

3e1dceffew more easy fixes

comment:108 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

With this branch, the following remains to be fixed (or marked as known bugs):

1) this appears to be a Maxima regression bug report:

sage -t src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
******************************************************************
****
File "src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 10600, in sage.symbo
lic.expression.Expression.solve
Failed example:
    solve(Q*sqrt(Q^2 + 2) - 1, Q, to_poly_solve=True)
Expected:
    [Q == 1/sqrt(-sqrt(2) + 1), Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) + 1)]
Got:
    [Q == -sqrt(-sqrt(2) - 1)]

2) this is weird (sage interface problem?) --- scratch this, it's a typo!

sage -t src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py
******************************************************************
****
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 210, in sage.interfaces
.maxima
Failed example:
    g.taylor('x', 0, 3)
Expected:
    x+x^3/6+(3*x^5)/40+(5*x^7)/112+(35*x^9)/1152
Got:
    f/(k^4*x^4)-(2*f)/((3*k^2)*x^2)+(11*f)/45-((62*k^2*f)*x^2)/945
**********************************************************************

3) this looks like a maxima regression bug report:

sage -t src/sage/calculus/tests.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/calculus/tests.py", line 107, in sage.calculus.tests
Failed example:
    integrate(log(1-x^2)/x, x)
Expected:
    1/2*log(x^2)*log(-x^2 + 1) + 1/2*dilog(-x^2 + 1)
Got:
    log(-x)*log(x + 1) + log(x)*log(-x + 1) + dilog(x + 1) + dilog(-x + 1)

4) this is a known Maxima issue bug report:

sage -t src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py
******************************************************************
****
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interf
aces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral
Failed example:
    integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x-5)), x, -5, 6)
Exception raised:
...
    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if(-(_SAGE_VAR_x-5)>0,-log(6-_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x-4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,-5,plus)' in Sage
**********************************************************************
Last edited 3 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:109 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 3e1dcefdd891434a777c426dc0f784c7091219af to 941b62c41b9266ddd6bceb5a82d228432b2ae2ce

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. Last 10 new commits:

f7448efsome more easy doctest fixes
81463e2more easy doctest fixes
386e276workaround for #<a ARITHMETIC-ERROR> (18920#comment:60
a0cd5d4fix for maxima bug #3236
5594310reflect patch's dependence on an earlier maxima tree commit
c5358b4new scaling of dynatomic polynomial
92d1c59bumped up for 5.39.0. Sage builds (with ecl 16.1.3)
2dbe3cfversion number in tests
efe9848easy doctest fixes
941b62cfew more easy fixes

comment:110 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

cleaned up the branch

comment:111 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 941b62c41b9266ddd6bceb5a82d228432b2ae2ce to fbc2293bfca9bd1a8612a48b13fcc38e012c3a31

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

fbc2293marked Maxima regressions: #18920, comment 108

comment:112 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from fbc2293bfca9bd1a8612a48b13fcc38e012c3a31 to 68a0ab241a065f9f133a8915cc2141b9f514892c

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

68a0ab2one more format output change

comment:113 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

OK, all done, ready for review, at last.

comment:114 Changed 3 years ago by tscrim

Instead of removing this doctest:

  • src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx

    diff --git a/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx b/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
    index 80c7149..0ca7904 100644
    a b cdef class Expression(CommutativeRingElement): 
    1059710597            Q
    1059810598            sage: solve(Q*sqrt(Q^2 + 2) - 1, Q)
    1059910599            [Q == 1/sqrt(Q^2 + 2)]
     10600
     10601        The following example is a regression in Maxima 5.39.0,
     10602        it used to be possible to get 2 solutions here, see
     10603        https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3276/::
     10604
    1060010605            sage: solve(Q*sqrt(Q^2 + 2) - 1, Q, to_poly_solve=True)
    10601             [Q == 1/sqrt(-sqrt(2) + 1), Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) + 1)]
     10606            [Q == -sqrt(-sqrt(2) - 1)]
    1060210607
    1060310608        In some cases there may be infinitely many solutions indexed
    1060410609        by a dummy variable.  If it begins with ``z``, it is implicitly

I would instead mark the previous solution as # known bug or at least keep the solution. Same in calculus/tests.py.

comment:115 Changed 3 years ago by charpent

  • Cc charpent added
  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

On Debian testing (Core i7 + 16 GB Ram), on a branch where R 3.2.2 is merged with the latest released Sage, a parallel test (MAKE="make -j8") gives :

----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage -t --long --warn-long 114.8 src/sage/tests/cmdline.py  # 2 doctests failed
sage -t --long --warn-long 114.8 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py  # 1 doctest failed
sage -t --long --warn-long 114.8 src/sage/interfaces/tests.py  # 1 doctest failed
sage -t --long --warn-long 114.8 src/sage/homology/simplicial_complex.py  # 1 doctest failed
sage -t --long --warn-long 114.8 src/sage/modules/free_module_element.pyx  # Timed out
----------------------------------------------------------------------

4 of these five are transient, and pass when run sandalone.

However:

charpent@asus16-ec:/usr/local/sage-7$ sage -t --long --warn-long 114.8 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py
Running doctests with ID 2017-01-18-16-59-41-26a3a809.
Git branch: testR
Using --optional=database_gap,giacpy_sage,mpir,python2,sage,xz
Doctesting 1 file.
sage -t --long --warn-long 114.8 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py", line 3532, in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.NCPolynomialIdeal.groebner_basis
Failed example:
    ideal(J.transformed_basis()).change_ring(P).interreduced_basis()  # optional - giacpy_sage
Expected:
    [a - 60*c^3 + 158/7*c^2 + 8/7*c - 1, b + 30*c^3 - 79/7*c^2 + 3/7*c, c^4 - 10/21*c^3 + 1/84*c^2 + 1/84*c]
Got:
    [7*a - 420*c^3 + 158*c^2 + 8*c - 7, 7*b + 210*c^3 - 79*c^2 + 3*c, 84*c^4 - 40*c^3 + c^2 + c]
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  67 in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.NCPolynomialIdeal.groebner_basis
    [727 tests, 1 failure, 9.29 s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage -t --long --warn-long 114.8 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py  # 1 doctest failed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total time for all tests: 9.4 seconds
    cpu time: 15.5 seconds
    cumulative wall time: 9.3 seconds

This latter bug is known, not really a bug and has its own ticket.

Furthermore, Maxima 5.38.1 (Debian testing current version) fixes one of my pet peeves :

charpent@SAP5057241:~$ maxima

Maxima 5.38.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.12
Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information.
(%i1) display2d:false;

(%o1) false
(%i2) integrate(f(x),x);

(%o2) 'integrate(f(x),x)
(%i3) taylor(integrate(f(x),x),x,x_0,2);

(%o3) 'at('integrate(f(x),x),x = x_0)+f(x_0)*(x-x_0)
                                     +(('at('diff(f(x),x,1),x = x_0))
                                      *(x-x_0)^2)
                                      /2

Whereas Sage's Maxima gives :

charpent@SAP5057241:~$ sage -maxima
;;; Loading #P"/usr/local/sage-7/local/lib/ecl/sb-bsd-sockets.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/usr/local/sage-7/local/lib/ecl/sockets.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/usr/local/sage-7/local/lib/ecl/defsystem.fas"
;;; Loading #P"/usr/local/sage-7/local/lib/ecl/cmp.fas"
Maxima 5.39.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
using Lisp ECL 16.1.2
Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information.
(%i1) display2d:false;

(%o1) false
(%i2) integrate(f(x),x);         

(%o2) 'integrate(f(x),x)
(%i3) taylor(integrate(f(x),x),x,x_0,2);

taylor: unable to expand at a point specified in:
'integrate(f(x),x)
 -- an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true);

So, we have :

  • already known problems with parallel testing ;
  • one already reported and ticketed test failure ;
  • one not already reported problem, that continues the previous behaviour of Maxima-in-Sage, whereas this behavior has been fixed in 5.38.1.

None of these seem to impede giving this ticket a positive_review. Which I'd do unless you think that the behavior of the taylor(integrate(...)...) should/could be fixed with this issue.

However, I think the objection of Thierry Scrim (?) valid, and I think it is more important, since it points out a case where Maxima's answer is incomplete. Hence ==>needs_work.

comment:116 in reply to: ↑ 108 Changed 3 years ago by rws

Replying to dimpase:

4) this is a known Maxima issue bug report:

sage -t src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py
******************************************************************
****
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interf
aces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral
Failed example:
    integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x-5)), x, -5, 6)
Exception raised:
...
    TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if(-(_SAGE_VAR_x-5)>0,-log(6-_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x-4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,-5,plus)' in Sage
**********************************************************************

Actually I believe Maxima is not to blame here, and in the bug report the dev says "not technically incorrect". See #17892 for our symbolic limit ticket.

comment:117 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 68a0ab241a065f9f133a8915cc2141b9f514892c to 0f2acfee0045d5179c805333c06061c2a4fe8ae8

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

0f2acfeaddressed the reviewers' concerns.

comment:118 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

comment:119 Changed 3 years ago by paulmasson

As a minor point, when reviewing documentation tickets I always ask that lines be kept to about the same length. I would appreciate if you could break the long lines here, especially in the tutorials. Thanks.

comment:120 Changed 3 years ago by charpent

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

This time, three failures in a parallel ptestlong :

----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage -t --long --warn-long 110.0 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py  # 1 doctest failed
sage -t --long --warn-long 110.0 src/sage/homology/simplicial_complex.py  # 1 doctest failed
sage -t --long --warn-long 110.0 src/sage/graphs/generators/smallgraphs.py  # Timed out
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Olny the firs one persists when run standalone, and is our old aquaintance... The other two are transient (race conditions ?)

Since the explanation given in #22191 show that the problem I signaled before is in ECL's realm, not Maxima's, there is no reason not to give this a positive_review.

Aaaaahhhhh !

comment:121 Changed 3 years ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

Reviewer name missing

comment:122 Changed 3 years ago by tscrim

  • Reviewers set to Travis Scrimshaw, Emmanuel Charpentier
  • Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
  • Work issues fix doctests deleted

comment:123 Changed 3 years ago by tscrim

  • Reviewers changed from Travis Scrimshaw, Emmanuel Charpentier to Travis Scrimshaw, Emmanuel Charpentier, François Bissey, Jeroen Demeyer, Nils Bruin

Adding some other people who I recall contributing comments, but may not be comprehensive or conservative (i.e., add/subtract your name).

comment:124 Changed 3 years ago by vbraun

  • Commit 0f2acfee0045d5179c805333c06061c2a4fe8ae8 deleted
  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

public/maxima5390 doesn't exist... typo?

comment:125 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

what? so it did quietly vanish? IMHO the whole git tree is fcked:

$ git push trac HEAD:public/maxima5390bis 
error: unable to push to unqualified destination: public/maxima5390bis
The destination refspec neither matches an existing ref on the remote nor
begins with refs/, and we are unable to guess a prefix based on the source ref.
error: failed to push some refs to 'git@trac.sagemath.org:sage.git'

EDIT: this went through on a 3rd attempt

Last edited 3 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:126 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Branch changed from public/maxima5390 to public/maxima5390bis
  • Commit set to 0f2acfee0045d5179c805333c06061c2a4fe8ae8
  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

comment:127 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Could please a reviewer compare the new branch with the old one he has locally? E.g. as follows:

git fetch trac public/maxima5390bis
git diff FETCH_HEAD trac/public/maxima5390

if this diff returns nothing we're good to go.

Last edited 3 years ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:128 Changed 3 years ago by charpent

I use git-trac (nice !...), so I did :

charpent@asus16-ec:/usr/local/sage-7$ git fetch trac public/maxima5390bis
Depuis git://trac.sagemath.org/sage
 * branch                  public/maxima5390bis -> FETCH_HEAD
charpent@asus16-ec:/usr/local/sage-7$ git diff FETCH_HEAD t/18920/public/maxima5390 
charpent@asus16-ec:/usr/local/sage-7$ 

So, unless I'm mistaken, "we're good to go"...

HTH,

comment:129 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:130 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Thanks. Hope the branch will not be cut again...

comment:131 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

comment:132 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

It says makeinfo not found. Great, we always had a few for maxima's documentation but I thought makeinfo was a requisite.

comment:133 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by vbraun

Maybe there is a make target that doesn't build the texinfo docs?

comment:134 in reply to: ↑ 131 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to vbraun:

Fails to build, e.g. http://build.sagedev.org/#/builders/16/builds/8/steps/5/logs/maxima

I cannot find anything there, the interface is pretty impossible to use for me. Can I have a link to the log file I can download?

comment:135 in reply to: ↑ 133 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to vbraun:

Maybe there is a make target that doesn't build the texinfo docs?

I'd say, just add makeinfo to the list of pre-reqs. It has been necessary to have it to build Maxima for years, see e.g. https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2878/

And it looks like the latter Maxima ticket did not fix anything :-)

comment:136 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_work to positive_review

something that has been a problem since Maxima 5.23 should not stop this ticket...

comment:137 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

I think we may have some workaround by touching the right file. It is not in the current spkg-install, so we have dropped it at some point. You are right to point to upstream that they have a regression. For info: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/commit/6656b7b171d83078bd55c3cceea0f45da517ded0

comment:138 Changed 3 years ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

Seriously, the buildbots don't have makeinfo installed

comment:139 in reply to: ↑ 137 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Replying to fbissey:

I think we may have some workaround by touching the right file. It is not in the current spkg-install, so we have dropped it at some point. You are right to point to upstream that they have a regression. For info: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/commit/6656b7b171d83078bd55c3cceea0f45da517ded0

perhaps our workound + Maxima's workarond + no makeinfo == error... :)

I'll check this.

comment:140 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

I am not convinced whether it's at all possible to build Maxima 5.39.0 and its docs without makeinfo. We are on our own here, as the official upstream pre-req for the build includes autotools.

Instead of wasting time on this academic issue, I'd like to rather include makeinfo into Sage pre-reqs.

comment:141 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

I have opened a new Maxima ticket on the makeinfo question.

comment:142 in reply to: ↑ 140 ; follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by charpent

Replying to dimpase:

I am not convinced whether it's at all possible to build Maxima 5.39.0 and its docs without makeinfo. We are on our own here, as the official upstream pre-req for the build includes autotools.

Instead of wasting time on this academic issue, I'd like to rather include makeinfo into Sage pre-reqs.

Seconded, on basic principles :

[ The following rant is not gratuitous. It's just a lemma. Bear with me for a while... ]

Our "batteries included" so-called philosophy has pushed us to include more and more software of peripheral interest at best up to the point where Sage is now a small-scale, highly specialized Linux distribution.

This distribution is of great interest to sage builders (i. e. potential developpers). It is at best an hindrance (read "pain in the *ss") to what should be one of our primary targets : the potential users of Sage. And no, this cannot be restricted to research mathematicians specializing in number theory...

For example, going to the pain to build our own GCC collection seems to me pushing consistency exigences a bit too far. Requiring from an installer (i. e. potential developper) to take the pain to install a matching set of decently recent compilers does not sound too much to me.

Corollary : our binary tarballs/packages should be sound enough to satisfy the largest possible number of potential users. That means that our users should not be requested to install and manage a virtual machine setup, nor a complicated installation on "exotic" platforms. An undergraduate or even high school student, a practising engineer, etc... should be able to install a precompiled binary and go use Sage as he uses a word processor, without having to install a $#!+load of tools he/she'll never use for anything else.

Therefore, if we need autotools to build Maxima, let's use existing autotools distributions, and do not try to avoid it. Or maintaining our own port. Maintaining our ports should be limited to the cases where there is a mathematical reason to do so.

[ End of rant. Now for its consequences : ]

Therefore, I think that wiggling away from one more tool to build Sage amounts to trying to alleviate the load of developers. Which is the wrong target. Our primary goal should be to alleviate the load imposed on users.

Those two sets were largely overlapping in the begionning of Sage, which as long been targeted on a certain research community. This is no longer the case. Sage now needs a lot of users, able to report problems, if we want to be able to fix them.

So, in the present case, if autotools is needed to build Maxima, let's depend on it for building Sage. But users of a binary distribution of Sage should not have to bother themselves with that.

In other (shorter) words : I'm not bothered by one more build dependency, if I can lighten the run dependencies... This seems the case here.

Corollary : the time spent on arguing and nitpicking over autotools would have been better spent helping Eric Bray's Cygwin port cum Windows installer, which opens us a quite large pool of potential users...

comment:143 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

autotools are not needed to build Maxima, but makeinfo apparently is.

Perhaps one can build Maxima without makeinfo if autotools are available, I didn't check, for this is even more academic question... makeinfo is a very easy pre-req, as it is available on every system we build Sage on, and included in XCode too.

comment:144 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 0f2acfee0045d5179c805333c06061c2a4fe8ae8 to 0ee645af1e93d1c2b74da7848d07157f0181f2a2

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

0ee645aRe-introduce the makeinfo workaround until upstream fix it again

comment:145 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

I think this is enough.

I have now re-introduced the makeinfo workaround and my logs says it is safe to use on a makeinfo-less system.

I appreciate the feeling Emmanuel but the place for it is sage-devel - of course nothing is likely to happen for it in the short term. The reality is now there are plenty of "user space" package management solution around (not so many when sage was started) and most of them do a better job than the sage packaging system. The other reality is those other packaging system usually don't play well with sage. We pick problems regularly from users with a default installation of brew on OS X for example.

comment:146 in reply to: ↑ 142 Changed 3 years ago by mkoeppe

Replying to charpent:

So, in the present case, if autotools is needed to build Maxima, let's depend on it for building Sage. But users of a binary distribution of Sage should not have to bother themselves with that.

In other (shorter) words : I'm not bothered by one more build dependency, if I can lighten the run dependencies... This seems the case here.

Users of binary distributions of Sage should still be able to install optional and experimental packages. Since there is no binary distribution of optional packages, build-time tools need to be included.

I would propose to add a standard package that includes (a current version of) texinfo (which provides makeinfo). Note that our autotools spkg packages only an ancient version of texinfo (4.13) (see #21196 for a discussion).

comment:147 in reply to: ↑ 143 Changed 3 years ago by pbruin

Replying to dimpase:

autotools are not needed to build Maxima, but makeinfo apparently is.

It should not be; the bug is that the necessary TeX files are not included in the tarball. Even if the user does not have makeinfo, there should be no problem because the configure script will set $(MAKEINFO) to a command that does nothing. There is at least one place where a Maxima makefile uses makeinfo instead of $(MAKEINFO). In #17514 I fixed this specific one, but I seem to remember another problem of this kind in newer Maxima versions. Anyway, the only way to really fix this is if the Maxima developers make sure that all TeX files are in the distribution.

comment:148 Changed 3 years ago by paulmasson

  • Cc paulmasson removed

comment:149 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

I have got a funny failing doctest in sage-on-gentoo but I am not completely sure this ticket is responsible (I am testing from the current develop branch of Volker's fork where he is testing this now)

sage -t --long /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sage/functions/special.py
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sage/functions/special.py", line 232, in sage.functions.special.SphericalHarmonic._eval_
Failed example:
    spherical_harmonic(3,2,1,2*pi/3)
Expected:
    1/240*sqrt(30)*(-15*I*sqrt(7)*sqrt(3)
     - 15*sqrt(7))*cos(1)*sin(1)^2/sqrt(pi)
Got:
    -1/240*sqrt(30)*(15*I*sqrt(7)*sqrt(3) + 15*sqrt(7))*cos(1)*sin(1)^2/sqrt(pi)
**********************************************************************

As you can see they are actually identical...

comment:150 Changed 3 years ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

I get the same on the buildbot....

comment:151 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

All bots or a mixture?

comment:152 Changed 3 years ago by vbraun

all

comment:153 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

Doctest introduced by #20939 merged in 7.6.beta0, that's why it was missed. The branch needs re-basing before it can be fixed. Incoming.

comment:154 Changed 3 years ago by dimpase

Please go on with this. I have negative amount of time available till the end of the week.

comment:155 Changed 3 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 0ee645af1e93d1c2b74da7848d07157f0181f2a2 to a6c51e6d71ceec22b0f08c28f9a1c29078fe5b14

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

71c0ceaMerge branch 'develop' into maxima5390bis
a6c51e6fix failing doctest introduced by #20939

comment:156 Changed 3 years ago by fbissey

  • Status changed from needs_work to positive_review

Definitely, not waiting for you. Here we go again, straight to positive review.

comment:157 Changed 3 years ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from public/maxima5390bis to a6c51e6d71ceec22b0f08c28f9a1c29078fe5b14
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.