#24369 closed defect (fixed)
upgrade arb to 2.12.0
Reported by:  tmonteil  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage8.2 
Component:  packages: standard  Keywords:  sdl 
Cc:  fredrik.johansson, fbissey  Merged in:  
Authors:  Dima Pasechnik  Reviewers:  Thierry Monteil, Marc Mezzarobba, Fredrik Johansson 
Report Upstream:  Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.  Work issues:  
Branch:  c793138 (Commits)  Commit:  
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
arb fails to pass selftests on x86_64 skylake. This is fixed in arb 2.12.0.
(The new version fails to pass selftests on my 32bit VM, while it did not before, see #24661.)
tarball here: https://github.com/fredrikjohansson/arb/archive/2.12.0.tar.gz
Attachments (3)
Change History (28)
Changed 3 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by
 Cc fredrik.johansson dimpase added
 Report Upstream changed from N/A to Reported upstream. No feedback yet.
comment:2 Changed 3 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 3 years ago by
By the way, the same error on x86_64 (a skylake CPU, Linux)
[arb2.11.1.p0] gauss_period_minpoly....make[3]: *** [../Makefile.subdirs:84: ../build/arb_fmpz_poly/test/tgauss_period_minpoly_RUN] Floating point exception
I'll investigate the upgrade option...
comment:4 Changed 3 years ago by
 Branch set to u/dimpase/arb212
 Commit set to c79313811851584c5b6732ea12da8b40d04b0377
 Description modified (diff)
 Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.
 Status changed from new to needs_review
mildly tested on x86_64, fixed numerical noise (which almost uniformly went down :)).
New commits:
c793138  update arb to 2.12.0, doctest fixes, and #24369

comment:5 Changed 3 years ago by
 Cc fbissey added; dimpase removed
comment:6 Changed 3 years ago by
Not a good time for me. I won't be able to give you a review before the 3rd or 4rth of January.
comment:7 Changed 3 years ago by
 Reviewers set to Thierry Monteil
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
With 2.12.0, i still have one test failure on 32bit system:
l_vec_hurwitz.... L value differ L(1/2, 1) single = (0 + 0j) +/ (0, 0j) L(1/2, 1) multi = (0.30909754859579756426 + 0j) +/ (2.54e23, 0j) (0.3090975486 + 0j) +/ (2.54e23, 0j) (0.7888523833  0.1836680212j) +/ (2.02e23, 1.54e23j) (0.4432168971  0.236477911j) +/ (1.99e23, 1.32e23j) (1.648021942 + 0.03777565741j) +/ (1.55e23, 8.22e24j) (0.6185977148 + 0.146695673j) +/ (2.08e23, 1.32e23j) (0.5039871966  0.8215955013j) +/ (2.02e23, 1.71e23j) (0.750432146 + 0j) +/ (2.54e23, 0j) (0.5039871966 + 0.8215955013j) +/ (2.02e23, 1.71e23j) (0.6185977148  0.146695673j) +/ (2.08e23, 1.32e23j) (1.648021942  0.03777565741j) +/ (1.55e23, 8.22e24j) (0.4432168971 + 0.236477911j) +/ (1.99e23, 1.32e23j) (0.7888523833 + 0.1836680212j) +/ (2.02e23, 1.54e23j) ../Makefile.subdirs:84: recipe for target '../build/acb_dirichlet/test/tl_vec_hurwitz_RUN' failed
See also the attached log.
Changed 3 years ago by
comment:8 Changed 3 years ago by
while I can confirm that this is reproducible on a "real" x86 (arando buildbot)
[arb2.12.0.p0] l_vec_hurwitz.... [arb2.12.0.p0] L value differ [arb2.12.0.p0] L(1/2, 1) single = (0 + 0j) +/ (0, 0j) [arb2.12.0.p0] L(1/2, 1) multi = (0.30909754859579756426 + 0j) +/ (2.54e23, 0j) [arb2.12.0.p0] [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.3090975486 + 0j) +/ (2.54e23, 0j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.7888523833  0.1836680212j) +/ (2.02e23, 1.54e23j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.4432168971  0.236477911j) +/ (1.99e23, 1.32e23j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (1.648021942 + 0.03777565741j) +/ (1.55e23, 8.22e24j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.6185977148 + 0.146695673j) +/ (2.08e23, 1.32e23j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.5039871966  0.8215955013j) +/ (2.02e23, 1.71e23j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.750432146 + 0j) +/ (2.54e23, 0j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.5039871966 + 0.8215955013j) +/ (2.02e23, 1.71e23j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.6185977148  0.146695673j) +/ (2.08e23, 1.32e23j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (1.648021942  0.03777565741j) +/ (1.55e23, 8.22e24j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.4432168971 + 0.236477911j) +/ (1.99e23, 1.32e23j) [arb2.12.0.p0] (0.7888523833 + 0.1836680212j) +/ (2.02e23, 1.54e23j) [arb2.12.0.p0] [arb2.12.0.p0] [arb2.12.0.p0] make[3]: *** [../build/acb_dirichlet/test/tl_vec_hurwitz_RUN] Aborted (core dumped)
I still insist that we should upgrade, as the previous version also does not pass all the selftests, albeit on a different (and much more popular) platform, x86_64 (if it is skylake it seems to work OK on nechalem).
See the attached log.
comment:9 Changed 3 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:10 followup: ↓ 11 Changed 3 years ago by
Just to make sure, your commit remove the whole of src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx
but not the corresponding pxd
file? are you sure?
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 ; followup: ↓ 12 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Just to make sure, your commit remove the whole of
src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx
but not the correspondingpxd
file? are you sure?
this is a trac git viewer bug. If you look at the commit in comment 4, it would make sense.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to fbissey:
Just to make sure, your commit remove the whole of
src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx
but not the correspondingpxd
file? are you sure?this is a trac git viewer bug. If you look at the commit in comment 4, it would make sense.
Nope, commit in comment 4 looks just the same.
comment:13 Changed 3 years ago by
Huh? https://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit?id=c79313811851584c5b6732ea12da8b40d04b0377
(it could be it is different for you). To be sure, use git, or look here: https://github.com/sagemath/sagetracmirror/compare/u/dimpase/arb212
comment:14 Changed 3 years ago by
This is how it looks to me:
author Dima Pasechnik <dimpase@gmail.com> 20171211 23:58:06 +0000 committer Dima Pasechnik <dimpase@gmail.com> 20171211 23:58:06 +0000 commit c79313811851584c5b6732ea12da8b40d04b0377 (patch) tree 94c8774bc96b6b9e5386f9e5502ee60db3de0eb2 parent Updated SageMath version to 8.1 (diff) update arb to 2.12.0, doctest fixes, and #24369u/dimpase/arb212 Diffstat rwrr build/pkgs/arb/checksums.ini 6 rwrr build/pkgs/arb/packageversion.txt 2 rwrr src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx 14 rwrr src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx 4 4 files changed, 13 insertions, 13 deletions diff git a/build/pkgs/arb/checksums.ini b/build/pkgs/arb/checksums.ini index 78909d5..1924ee0 100644  a/build/pkgs/arb/checksums.ini +++ b/build/pkgs/arb/checksums.ini @@ 1,4 +1,4 @@ tarball=arbVERSION.tar.gz sha1=2f06bfb433cdaecde0e824c5e638094fd666a0d1 md5=d63cdd1147104790826c93bc8651104f cksum=2745482665 +sha1=27476d0529e48a07d92da90bd0fb80dd18f443e3 +md5=733285d9705d10b8024e551ffa81952f +cksum=2391183744 diff git a/build/pkgs/arb/packageversion.txt b/build/pkgs/arb/packageversion.txt index 99993ff..c8810e9 100644  a/build/pkgs/arb/packageversion.txt +++ b/build/pkgs/arb/packageversion.txt @@ 1 +1 @@ 2.11.1.p0 +2.12.0.p0 diff git a/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx b/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx index ee048fb..71fad24 100644  a/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx +++ b/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx @@ 2603,7 +2603,7 @@ cdef class ComplexBall(RingElement): EXAMPLES:: sage: CBF(0, 1).agm1()  [0.5990701173678 +/ 1.15e14] + [0.5990701173678 +/ 1.19e14]*I + [0.599070117367796 +/ 3.9...e16] + [0.599070117367796 +/ 5.5...e16]*I """ cdef ComplexBall res = self._new() if _do_sig(prec(self)): sig_on() @@ 3318,9 +3318,9 @@ cdef class ComplexBall(RingElement): [0.002473055794309 +/ 5.01e16] + [0.003859554040267 +/ 4.45e16]*I, [0.01299087561709 +/ 4.72e15] + [0.00725027521915 +/ 4.32e15]*I] sage: (z + 3 + 4*tau).elliptic_p(tau, 3)  [[3.2892099677271 +/ 2.29e14] + [0.00036737673029 +/ 8.58e15]*I,  [0.002473055794 +/ 6.59e13] + [0.003859554040 +/ 6.17e13]*I,  [0.0129908756 +/ 3.39e11] + [0.0072502752 +/ 3.60e11]*I] + [[3.28920996772709 +/ 8.4...e15] + [0.00036737673029 +/ 4.1...e15]*I, + [0.0024730557943 +/ 6.6...e14] + [0.0038595540403 +/ 8.8...e14]*I, + [0.01299087562 +/ 5.6...e12] + [0.00725027522 +/ 3.5...e12]*I] """ cdef ComplexBall my_tau = self._parent.coerce(tau) @@ 3356,7 +3356,7 @@ cdef class ComplexBall(RingElement): EXAMPLES:: sage: CBF(2,3).elliptic_k()  [1.0429132919285 +/ 3.65e14] + [0.6296824723086 +/ 6.15e14]*I + [1.04291329192852 +/ 5.9...e15] + [0.62968247230864 +/ 3.4...e15]*I """ cdef ComplexBall result = self._new() @@ 3373,7 +3373,7 @@ cdef class ComplexBall(RingElement): EXAMPLES:: sage: CBF(2,3).elliptic_e()  [1.472797144959 +/ 4.82e13] + [1.231604783936 +/ 1.25e13]*I + [1.472797144959 +/ 4.5...e13] + [1.231604783936 +/ 9.5...e14]*I """ cdef ComplexBall result = self._new() @@ 3520,7 +3520,7 @@ cdef class ComplexBall(RingElement): EXAMPLES:: sage: CBF(1/2).legendre_P(5)  0.08984375000000000 + [0.08984375000000000 +/ 4.5...e18] sage: CBF(1,2).legendre_P(CBF(2,3), CBF(0,1)) [0.10996180744364 +/ 7.45e15] + [0.14312767804055 +/ 8.38e15]*I sage: CBF(10).legendre_P(5, 325/100) diff git a/src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx b/src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx index aa12ae0..9aad425 100644  a/src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx +++ b/src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx @@ 3451,7 +3451,7 @@ cdef class RealBall(RingElement): sage: RBF(1/2).polylog(1) [0.6931471805599 +/ 5.02e14] sage: RBF(1/3).polylog(1/2)  [0.44210883528067 +/ 6.75e15] + [0.44210883528067 +/ 6.7...e15] sage: RBF(1/3).polylog(RLF(pi)) [0.34728895057225 +/ 5.51e15] @@ 3551,7 +3551,7 @@ cdef class RealBall(RingElement): sage: RBF(1).agm(1) 1.000000000000000 sage: RBF(sqrt(2)).agm(1)^(1)  [0.83462684167407 +/ 4.31e15] + [0.83462684167407 +/ 3.9...e15] """ cdef RealBall other_as_ball cdef RealBall res = self._new()
comment:15 Changed 3 years ago by
Oh yes that's right. I did something wrong there.
comment:16 followup: ↓ 17 Changed 3 years ago by
I was going to give this a positive review but rereading things I am getting concerned that the new arbś tests fail systematically on 32bits machine. Is it a correct assertion?
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 16 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I was going to give this a positive review but rereading things I am getting concerned that the new arbś tests fail systematically on 32bits machine. Is it a correct assertion?
Yes. I am OK to either open another ticket for the upgrade, or another for the 32bit issue, but in any case, please do not just close that one without opening another ticket, since the issue is not solved (or only partially).
comment:18 Changed 3 years ago by
This upgrade is an improvement. Surely the 32bit issue is not fully solved (the new bug is in new code as far as I can see), but this should go to a followup ticket.
comment:19 Changed 3 years ago by
Yes, the 32bit bug is almost certainly in new code and should not be a concern for Sage.
comment:20 Changed 3 years ago by
The followup ticket is here: #24661
Let us finally be done with this one.
comment:21 Changed 3 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Reviewers changed from Thierry Monteil to Thierry Monteil, Marc Mezzarobba, Fredrik Johansson
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
 Summary changed from arb fails to pass selftests to upgrade arb to 2.12.0
comment:22 Changed 3 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/dimpase/arb212 to c79313811851584c5b6732ea12da8b40d04b0377
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:23 followup: ↓ 24 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit c79313811851584c5b6732ea12da8b40d04b0377 deleted
This ticket has been closed, but as far as I can see, it's not been merged into the develop branch. Is that intentional?
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.
(Edit: I don't know why trac says I deleted the commit.)
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to Konrad127123:
This ticket has been closed, but as far as I can see, it's not been merged into the develop branch. Is that intentional?
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.
I think it will be in the next beta (it has been merged in a sort of trunk, and this happened later than the latest ticket in the current beta(5))
(Edit: I don't know why trac says I deleted the commit.)
this is just a quirk of the interface. In fact the branch u/dimpase/arb212 is still there if you need it, e.g. from the mirror:
https://github.com/sagemath/sagetracmirror/tree/u/dimpase/arb212
comment:25 Changed 17 months ago by
 Keywords sdl added
Does upgrading to 2.12 solve the issue?