Opened 6 years ago
Last modified 5 years ago
#21624 needs_work defect
Better debug mode for singular 4
Reported by: | jpflori | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | packages: standard | Keywords: | |
Cc: | embray | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | ||
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
This is a follow up to #17254 which upgraded to singular 4:
- debug (with xalloc) build on OS X (om_Info gets undefined (U) in Singular, note that it is ok on linux (B), maybe depends on ocmpiler, linker vesions)
- failing test in debug mode
Change History (30)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by
- Priority changed from major to blocker
- Type changed from enhancement to defect
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 2 ; follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 6 years ago by
All of these errors look like:
// ***dPolyReportError: NULL coef occurred at occurred for poly: o*x*y*x_1*y_1*x_2 // ***dPolyReportError: NULL coef occurred at occurred for poly: o*y*x_1*y_1*x_2 // ***dError: S_2_R[2]=1 != T[1].i_r=0 -y*z*x - y*z*y - y*z*z
except for the last one:
File "src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py", line 108, in sage.schemes.curves.constructor.Curve Failed example: C.genus() Expected: 13 Got: // ** no minpoly allowed if there are local objects belonging to the basering: number((a2+a+1)) // ** killing a local object due to minpoly change: p // ** no minpoly allowed if there are local objects belonging to the basering: number((a2-a+1)) // ** killing a local object due to minpoly change: p 13
24528sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring.py # 18 doctests failed 24529sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring_element.py # 1 doctest failed 24530sage -t --long src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py # 1 doctest failed }}}
comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by
Thread about first issue here:
comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
And the second one here:
comment:7 follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 6 years ago by
With #21631 there are now also many
// ***dError: assume violation at numbers.cc:426 condition: n->cfCoeffName!=ndCoeffName
warnings, though no crashes.
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by
Can you tell in which file it is?
comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by
Ok, got it.
comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by
See ##21865 for new errors occurring only in debug mode in:
- sage/rings/cfinite_sequence.py
- sage/matrix/matrix_modn_dense_template.pxi
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; follow-up: ↓ 14 Changed 5 years ago by
the last issue ( "no minpoly allowed..") can be fixed with
https://github.com/Singular/Sources/pull/814 (avoids intermediate object between ring declaration and minpoly definition in 'normal.lib')
Did you get answers from Hans for the other issues? Or, could you track them down?
Replying to jpflori:
All of these errors look like:
// ***dPolyReportError: NULL coef occurred at occurred for poly: o*x*y*x_1*y_1*x_2 // ***dPolyReportError: NULL coef occurred at occurred for poly: o*y*x_1*y_1*x_2 // ***dError: S_2_R[2]=1 != T[1].i_r=0 -y*z*x - y*z*y - y*z*zexcept for the last one:
File "src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py", line 108, in sage.schemes.curves.constructor.Curve Failed example: C.genus() Expected: 13 Got: // ** no minpoly allowed if there are local objects belonging to the basering: number((a2+a+1)) // ** killing a local object due to minpoly change: p // ** no minpoly allowed if there are local objects belonging to the basering: number((a2-a+1)) // ** killing a local object due to minpoly change: p 1324528sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring.py # 18 doctests failed 24529sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring_element.py # 1 doctest failed 24530sage -t --long src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py # 1 doctest failed }}}
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 5 years ago by
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jakobkroeker:
Replying to vbraun:
With #21631 there are now also many
// ***dError: assume violation at numbers.cc:426 condition: n->cfCoeffName!=ndCoeffNamewarnings, though no crashes.
so changes in #21631 introduced a new issue? Could someone track it down?
This has been fixed in Singular git version.
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 11 ; follow-ups: ↓ 15 ↓ 18 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jakobkroeker:
the last issue ( "no minpoly allowed..") can be fixed with
https://github.com/Singular/Sources/pull/814 (avoids intermediate object between ring declaration and minpoly definition in 'normal.lib')
Good! It's even in Singular's git version now.
Did you get answers from Hans for the other issues? Or, could you track them down?
Replying to jpflori:
All of these errors look like:
occurred at occurred for poly: o*y*x_1*y_1*x_2 // ***dError: S_2_R[2]=1 != T[1].i_r=0 -y*z*x - y*z*y - y*z*z
Those like this were still present last time I checked and those about stuff not being where it belongs through kTest_L and kTest_TS as mentioned here:
No feedback from Hans and I had no time to look at it.
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 14 Changed 5 years ago by
I just reminded Hans kindly to look at that issue since it is a blocker ticket for sage.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/libsingular-devel/TPZNlvZXei0/CptSq0fdAgAJ
Let's see if something happens.
Replying to jpflori:
Replying to jakobkroeker:
the last issue ( "no minpoly allowed..") can be fixed with
https://github.com/Singular/Sources/pull/814 (avoids intermediate object between ring declaration and minpoly definition in 'normal.lib')
Good! It's even in Singular's git version now.
Did you get answers from Hans for the other issues? Or, could you track them down?
Replying to jpflori:
All of these errors look like:
occurred at occurred for poly: o*y*x_1*y_1*x_2 // ***dError: S_2_R[2]=1 != T[1].i_r=0 -y*z*x - y*z*y - y*z*zThose like this were still present last time I checked and those about stuff not being where it belongs through kTest_L and kTest_TS as mentioned here:
No feedback from Hans and I had no time to look at it.
comment:16 follow-up: ↓ 17 Changed 5 years ago by
With the latest tarball for 4-1-0p2, debug mode should be clean:
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 16 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jpflori:
With the latest tarball for 4-1-0p2, debug mode should be clean:
related singular commit is https://github.com/Singular/Sources/commit/54c80cb81ed58f166a023fc060f541e24ebd5892
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 14 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jpflori:
Replying to jakobkroeker:
the last issue ( "no minpoly allowed..") can be fixed with
https://github.com/Singular/Sources/pull/814 (avoids intermediate object between ring declaration and minpoly definition in 'normal.lib')
Good! It's even in Singular's git version now.
There are much more issues in Singular LIBs where the minpoly is not immediately defined (and lead to debug output) which are probably not hit by current sage tests, but in the long term they have all to be fixed: https://github.com/jakobkroeker/test_singular/issues/243
comment:19 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc embray added
- Milestone sage-7.4 deleted
- Priority changed from blocker to major
I think I'm seeing this too. I almost always compile with SAGE_DEBUG=yes
on Cygwin since I have to debug things so often, and I'm seeing lots of failures like this since the switch to Singular 4. Going to recompile Singular in non-debug mode to confirm that it goes away.
(Also obviously this isn't a blocker or it'd be fixed by now :)
comment:20 Changed 5 years ago by
Confirmed that rebuilding Singular and its dependents with SAGE_DEBUG=no
fixed these failures for me.
comment:21 Changed 5 years ago by
comment:22 Changed 5 years ago by
I don't think I've tried yet. I'll test it and see. Are you saying it should be fixed even with SAGE_DEBUG=yes
?
comment:23 Changed 5 years ago by
All error messages specific to singular built in debug mode should not appear anymore.
comment:24 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone set to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from new to needs_review
Should be ok since the latest singular upgrade.
comment:25 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
I'm still getting this one
sage -t --long src/sage/interfaces/singular.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/interfaces/singular.py", line 1523, in sage.interfaces.singular.SingularElement.sage_global_ring Failed example: singular.eval('ring r5 = (complex,15,j),(a,b,c),dp') Expected: '' Got: '\n// ***dError: assume violation at numbers.cc:434 condition: n->cfCoeffName!=ndCoeffName' ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 22 in sage.interfaces.singular.SingularElement.sage_global_ring [390 tests, 1 failure, 10.81 s]
comment:26 Changed 5 years ago by
Maybe #22868. Did not check debug mode there.
comment:27 Changed 5 years ago by
Unfortunately the failing test it is still here with 4.1.0p3.
comment:28 Changed 5 years ago by
Should be fixed in git version:
@volker: do you see any other failures?
comment:29 Changed 5 years ago by
These look a bit like they might be from Singular, haven't investigated further:
sage -t --long src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py", line 1761, in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.?.interreduced_basis Failed example: Ideal(P(0)).interreduced_basis() Expected: [0] Got: wrong mod p number 140727535500960 at modulop.cc,158 [0] ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 13 in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.?.interreduced_basis [722 tests, 1 failure, 75.81 s] sage -t --long src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_sequence.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_sequence.py", line 1022, in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_sequence.PolynomialSequence_generic.reduced Failed example: Sequence([P(0)]).reduced() Expected: [0] Got: wrong mod p number 140727535505680 at modulop.cc,158 [0] ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 17 in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_sequence.PolynomialSequence_generic.reduced [235 tests, 1 failure, 14.47 s]
comment:30 Changed 5 years ago by
Error messages definitely from Singular, though it might be from bad input on Sage's side.