#4000 closed enhancement (fixed)
Implement QQ['x'] via Flint ZZ['x'] + denominator
Reported by:  malb  Owned by:  somebody 

Priority:  blocker  Milestone:  sage4.6 
Component:  basic arithmetic  Keywords:  
Cc:  burcin, drkirkby, spancratz, mhansen, malb, jdemeyer, pjeremy  Merged in:  sage4.6.alpha3 
Authors:  Sebastian Pancratz, Martin Albrecht, William Stein, Jeroen Demeyer, Rob Beezer  Reviewers:  John Cremona, Martin Albrecht, Alex Ghitza, Harald Schilly, William Stein, Mitesh Patel 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  Commit:  
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description
Bill Hart wrote on [sagedevel]:
""" Almost everything over Q should probably be converted to a problem over Z. I haven't seen any polynomial problems over Q which should not be dealt with this way so far, but I suppose they may exist. """
Further justification:
sage: f = R.random_element(2000) sage: g = R.random_element(2000) sage: fD = f.denominator() sage: gD = g.denominator() sage: fZ = (fD * f).change_ring(ZZ) sage: gZ = (gD * g).change_ring(ZZ) sage: %time _ = f*g CPU times: user 0.63 s, sys: 0.02 s, total: 0.66 s Wall time: 0.67 s sage: %time _ = (fZ*gZ) CPU times: user 0.01 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.01 s Wall time: 0.01 s sage: %time _ = (fZ*gZ)/(fD*gD) CPU times: user 0.06 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.06 s Wall time: 0.06 s sage: fM = magma(f) sage: gM = magma(g) sage: t = magma.cputime() sage: _ = fM*gM sage: magma.cputime(t) 0.059999999999999998
sage: f = R.random_element(4000) sage: g = R.random_element(4000) sage: fD = f.denominator() sage: gD = g.denominator() sage: fZ = (fD * f).change_ring(ZZ) sage: gZ = (gD * g).change_ring(ZZ) sage: %time _ = f*g CPU times: user 2.11 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 2.12 s Wall time: 2.14 s sage: %time _ = (fZ*gZ) CPU times: user 0.02 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.02 s Wall time: 0.02 s sage: %time _ = (fZ*gZ)/(fD*gD) CPU times: user 0.14 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 0.15 s Wall time: 0.15 s sage: fM = magma(f) sage: gM = magma(g) sage: t = magma.cputime() sage: _ = fM*gM sage: magma.cputime(t) 0.10000000000000001
Attachments (11)
Change History (147)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
 Cc burcin added
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
 Cc spancratz added
 Summary changed from Implement QQ['x'] via Flint ZZ['x'] + denominator to [with patch, needs work] Implement QQ['x'] via Flint ZZ['x'] + denominator
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
I've now implemented most methods in the prototype from the previous patch uploaded, and sent a message to sagedevel under the thread "Improving QQx?" with some questions.
Sebastian
comment:4 followup: ↓ 5 Changed 9 years ago by
Some remarks
 the patch uses the old style docstring format, cf. http://wiki.sagemath.org/combinat/HelpOnTheDoc
 you should claim copyright
cdef inline int _celement_canonicalise
why notvoid
? all
celement_foo
functions should have doctests, which call theQQ[x]
methods which call thecelement_
functions  have you tried switching the default to this implementation to see how many doctests fail?
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Martin,
I've now implemented all methods in the prototype. (I'll attach a new patch in a few minutes.) All of your above comments make sense and I can go through this tomorrow. One thing I could not get done is make SAGE use this implementation by default. In the file polynomial_ring.py, I tried replacing the line 1185 with
from sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint import Polynomial_rational_dense_flint element_class = Polynomial_rational_dense_flint
and while building still works, executing ./sage results in a whole screen full output, ending with
b37bb0/home/suser/sage4.1.2.alpha0/local/bin/sagesage: line 199: 16297 Aborted sageipython "$@" i
Am I making a mistake in the way I am trying to switch the default, or does this due to problems in the actual new implementation? I've got no idea how to fix this. Of course, I am then happy to do lots of testing.
Kind regards,
Sebastian
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
I can take a look tomorrow to debug this.
comment:7 followup: ↓ 8 Changed 9 years ago by
I fixed the startup crash. I suggest you take a look at fmpq.diff
to see what I changed. If you want to debug these kind of issues start Sage using sage gdb
or sage valgrind
(you will need to install the optional Valgrind SPKG for this to work). Note that there is still some conversion code missing in polynomial_rational_flint.pyx
.
sage: P.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = P.random_element(2000) sage: g = P.random_element(2000) sage: %time _ = f*g CPU times: user 0.01 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.01 s Wall time: 0.02 s
sage: P.<x> = PolynomialRing(QQ,'x',implementation='pari') sage: f = P.random_element(2000) sage: g = P.random_element(2000) sage: %time _ = f*g CPU times: user 0.59 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.59 s Wall time: 0.59 s
sage: P.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = P.random_element(5000) sage: g = P.random_element(5000) sage: %time _ = f*g CPU times: user 0.03 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.03 s Wall time: 0.04 s
sage: fM = magma(f) sage: gM = magma(g) sage: t = magma.cputime() sage: _ = fM*gM sage: magma.cputime(t) 0.12
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; followup: ↓ 9 Changed 9 years ago by
Thanks for the quick debugging and making the code accessible in SAGE for testing! I'll upload a new version of the patch later. Here are a few (unsorted) remarks:
 The printing isn't "nice" yet: Rationals are still printed in the form r/s even if s divides r. In fact, all coefficients are printed with the common denominator of the polynomial. I've got an idea of how to fix that, but I am not sure it'll work; I'll give it a try later.
 Say we set up to polynomial rings R[x] and S[y], one using the generic implementation and one using FLINT. Then sometimes (usually?) coercion like "f_flint = S(f_generic)" or "f_generic = R(f_flint)" works, but sometimes it ends in a segfault. For two random polynomials f and d, of two successive calls "q, s, t = xgcd(f, d)" the first one succeeded and the second one ended in a segfault. This seems *very* strange to me!
 We achieve a performance gain except in the cases of addition and subtraction. (See below.)
 The method xgcd doesn't give the right result yet, I'll look into that later.
 I have no idea what you mean by "Note that there is still some conversion code missing in polynomial_rational_flint.pyx." Are there any examples of this in other files?
 I'll write up the doctests later. Regarding your comments on using the "old" documentation style, I don't quite understand this.
Here is a complete (except for XGCD) list of performance comparisons, using the local installation of SAGE 4.1.2.alpha0 plus this patch on my laptop (Ubuntu 8.10, Intel Core 2 Duo). The first few tests, from comparison through to power, involve random polynomials f and g of degrees 2000, the division tests use random polynomials f and d of degrees 800 and 560, and for the GCD test f and d have degree 60 and 42. In each case, the first output line is for the generic implementation, the second output line is for the new implementation using FLINT.
Comparison: f == g 1 loops, best of 3: 10 µs per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 954 ns per loop Comparison: f < g 1 loops, best of 3: 11 µs per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 1.91 µs per loop Addition: f + g 1 loops, best of 3: 373 µs per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 2.26 ms per loop Subtraction: f  g 1 loops, best of 3: 474 µs per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 2.23 ms per loop Negation: f 1 loops, best of 3: 12.9 ms per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 39.8 µs per loop Multiplication: f * g 1 loops, best of 3: 549 ms per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 15.9 ms per loop Power: f ** 4 1 loops, best of 3: 15.1 s per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 63.7 ms per loop Division: q, r = f.quo_rem(d) 1 loops, best of 3: 2.42 s per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 177 ms per loop Division: q = f // d 1 loops, best of 3: 2.43 s per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 63.9 ms per loop Division: r = f % d 1 loops, best of 3: 2.43 s per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 193 ms per loop GCD 1 loops, best of 3: 1.81 s per loop 1 loops, best of 3: 88.9 µs per loop
Sebastian
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; followup: ↓ 13 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
 Say we set up to polynomial rings R[x] and S[y], one using the generic implementation and one using FLINT. Then sometimes (usually?) coercion like "f_flint = S(f_generic)" or "f_generic = R(f_flint)" works, but sometimes it ends in a segfault. For two random polynomials f and d, of two successive calls "q, s, t = xgcd(f, d)" the first one succeeded and the second one ended in a segfault. This seems *very* strange to me!
Try running Sage with sage gdb
and/or sage valgrind
. The later requires the optional Valgrind SPKG. The output of valgrind is incredibly useful and can be found in ~/.sage/valgrind
. If you don't get anywhere, I can take a look. But learning Valgrind is well worth it :)
 We achieve a performance gain except in the cases of addition and subtraction. (See below.)
We should think about how to make it more efficient, e.g. by only multiplying by the multiplier to get the LCM? Magma can do it faster than what we can do it seems.
 The method xgcd doesn't give the right result yet, I'll look into that later.
 I have no idea what you mean by "Note that there is still some conversion code missing in polynomial_rational_flint.pyx." Are there any examples of this in other files?
You are right, the overflow I was expecting doesn't happen (I think this is handled correctly in the base ring). We should consider making x + 1
(1 either int or Integer) fast though by writing special code similar to the Rational code in the __init__
function of polynomial_rational_flint.pyx
. Also, construction from a list P([1,2,3,4])
should be made faster, cf. the zmod_poly implementation.
 I'll write up the doctests later. Regarding your comments on using the "old" documentation style, I don't quite understand this.
You wrote e.g. \code{foo}
which is the old LaTeX style. It should be using the Sphinx markup now.
Here is a complete (except for XGCD) list of performance comparisons, using the local installation of SAGE 4.1.2.alpha0 plus this patch on my laptop (Ubuntu 8.10, Intel Core 2 Duo). The first few tests, from comparison through to power, involve random polynomials f and g of degrees 2000, the division tests use random polynomials f and d of degrees 800 and 560, and for the GCD test f and d have degree 60 and 42. In each case, the first output line is for the generic implementation, the second output line is for the new implementation using FLINT.
This is encouraging!
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by
Also, I think our design for .den
is false. It shouldn't be preallocated because this makes you call realloc, i.e. we have two system calls instead of one. This is quite expensive.
comment:11 followup: ↓ 12 Changed 9 years ago by
Actually, I am not quite sure about this. When working with a random polynomial of degree 2000, which will have lots of nonzero entries all of type fmpz_t, it shouldn't really matter whether we manually initialise a few more for the denominators.
I've tried implementing the denominator with the convention that it is either NULL
(which should be interpreted as one) or initialised to a positive integer. But this didn't really change the performance.
Another idea, which will sometimes help to keep numbers small, is to instead represented the polynomial over the rationals as (num / dem) prim
where
num / dem
is a rational number in reduced form and
prim
is a primitive integer polynomial with positive leading coefficient. Obviously, this change vastly improved the performance of negation (which then only operates on the rational number and leaves the integer polynomial part alone). But it didn't change much apart from that. Anyway, given we need to compute the content of the numerator anyway to ensure that it is coprime to the denominator, we might as well store it separately. I'll implement this throughout the patch and upload a new version later today.
This still leaves the problem: How can we speed up addition?
At the moment, I don't have any further ideas. In fact, I think it might perhaps be the case that we simply can't, since in this kind of implementation we have to at least do a few polynomial scalar multiplications (and perhaps polynomial scalar divisions as well as integer gcd computations to maintain the form of the representation) plus all the coefficient additions. In contrast to this, implementing polynomials as an array of coefficients one only has to do the (rational!) coefficient additions.
So the next things I'll do are
 Change the fmpq_poly_t data type
 Change all the methods accordingly
 Write docstrings
Does anyone have any ideas about the addition?
Sebastian
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
Actually, I am not quite sure about this. When working with a random polynomial of degree 2000, which will have lots of nonzero entries all of type fmpz_t, it shouldn't really matter whether we manually initialise a few more for the denominators.
We shouldn't forget about small polynomials, they should be fast too. Two instead of one system call sounds rather expensive to me for basic arithmetic.
I've tried implementing the denominator with the convention that it is either
NULL
(which should be interpreted as one) or initialised to a positive integer. But this didn't really change the performance.
Did you try small examples? Also, how much does the realloc trick you implemented give you?
Another idea, which will sometimes help to keep numbers small, is to instead represented the polynomial over the rationals as
(num / dem) prim
where
num / dem
is a rational number in reduced form and
prim
is a primitive integer polynomial with positive leading coefficient. Obviously, this change vastly improved the performance of negation (which then only operates on the rational number and leaves the integer polynomial part alone). But it didn't change much apart from that. Anyway, given we need to compute the content of the numerator anyway to ensure that it is coprime to the denominator, we might as well store it separately. I'll implement this throughout the patch and upload a new version later today.
This still leaves the problem: How can we speed up addition?
Did you try the LCM idea? Rationale:
sage: P.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = P.random_element(3000) sage: g = P.random_element(3000) sage: fD = f.denominator() sage: gD = g.denominator() sage: (fD*gD).nbits() 320 sage: (fD.lcm(gD)).nbits() 228
At the moment, I don't have any further ideas. In fact, I think it might perhaps be the case that we simply can't, since in this kind of implementation we have to at least do a few polynomial scalar multiplications (and perhaps polynomial scalar divisions as well as integer gcd computations to maintain the form of the representation) plus all the coefficient additions. In contrast to this, implementing polynomials as an array of coefficients one only has to do the (rational!) coefficient additions.
Well, this other implementation would have to do quite a few rational additions where it would have to deal with denominators quite a bit. I am not convinced yet it has to be this slow. You could also ask on [sagedevel] I am sure, e.g. Bill Hart (main author of FLINT) would have some cool ideas.
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; followup: ↓ 14 Changed 9 years ago by
I am sorry for the delay in working on this. Rather than trying the approach of writing the polynomial as r A / s
, I've tried again to write this as A / s
only as you laid out initially, this time trying really hard to avoid allocating anything new. Not everything is working again yet, I still need to rewrite the three division functions, exponentiation and the two gcd functions. The upside is that everything seems to be lots faster now :).
Hopefully I'll be able to upload something useful tomorrow.
Sebastian
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 9 years ago by
The switch to include NULL denominators still isn't quite done. However, I *think* addition and multiplication are bugfree already and show another massive improvement in speed. There are definitely still bugs in the division method, and the modular exponentiation as well as the gcd methods aren't implemented yet. I should be able to look into this tomorrow.
Sebastian
comment:15 followup: ↓ 17 Changed 9 years ago by
I can't test the most current patch (on geom.math):
sage: P.<x> = PolynomialRing(QQ) sage: f = P.random_element(2000) ... __celement_den_fit_limbs Error: division by zero! /scratch/malb/sage4.1.2.alpha1/local/bin/sagesage: line 199: 12195 Aborted sageipython "$@" i
comment:16 followup: ↓ 18 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Martin,
I am sorry for that. Last night and this morning I fixed another couple of bugs. In a few minutes, I'll upload a new patch (or rather, again the difference from the 20090911 patch). By the way, for debugging purposes all methods in the linkage file now begin with printing the method's name (although in all but the floordiv method, that line begins with '#').
Random (performance!, not correctness...) tests ran fine last night for polynomials of degree 2000 for the methods ==, <, +, , neg, *, ^{. I thought the three division methods should work fine now, until I stumbled across the following segfault: }
sage: S.<y> = QQ[] sage: f = 3 * y^10  4 * y^9 sage: g = (1/2) * y^6 + 3 * y^5 + 160930 * y^4 sage: f // g celement_floordiv Perform pseudo division 3*x^104*x^9 x^6+6*x^5+321860*x^4  Unhandled SIGSEGV: A segmentation fault occured in SAGE. This probably occured because a *compiled* component of SAGE has a bug in it (typically accessing invalid memory) or is not properly wrapped with _sig_on, _sig_off. You might want to run SAGE under gdb with 'sage gdb' to debug this. SAGE will now terminate (sorry). 
This strikes me as very odd because the segfault seems to occur in the call fmpz_poly_pseudo_div(q.num, &m, a.num, b.num)
with
a.num
the polynomial
3*x^{104*x}9
and
b.den
the polynomial
x^{6+6*x}5+321860*x^{4. Perhaps you could have a look at this one?
}
I haven't looked at the two gcd methods yet, but I'll do that later today or tomorrow.
As the last question about the implementation (for this method), I noticed that polynomials over QQ in SAGE have the method denominator
, which clearly this implementation should overwrite. On which level/ in which file should this be done?
Finally, here are the performance timings, in each case for ten random polynomials of degree 2000, first the time for the generic implementation and then the time for this implementation with FLINT:
==
 20µs, 1µs
<
 20µs, 1µs
+
 400µs, 100µs

 400µs, 100µs
neg
 20ms, 20µs
*
 500ms, 1ms
^{ (to the 4th power)  15s, 30µs }
Kind regards,
Sebastian
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 15 ; followup: ↓ 19 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Martin,
I just started to look at the gcd methods again and I also looked at the logic in polynomial_template.pxi. Here's the question:
Since the gcd of two polynomials is only defined up to multiplication by rationals, what's the *right* way of dealing with this? I think one can make a good argument for always returning the same normalisation. This would also mean that we do *not* necessarily have gcd(a,0) == a. This is currently the way it's handled in the file polynomial_template.pxi. If we want to normalise the gcd, in which way should this be done? If it's nonzero..
 Monic rational polynomial
 Primitive integer polynomial with positive leading coefficient
Of course, there are lots more but I think these two might be the most sensible choices.
The first one has the advantage that it generalises to all polynomial rings (over commutative rings with 1, at least). Upon adding a method returning the monic scalar multiple of a polynomial to the template file, one can still handle the cases of gcd(a,0) and gcd(0,b) in the template file.
Personally though, I am more in favour of the second option, since this might lead to faster code when working with QQ[]. In this case, we should remove the handling of the above two cases from the template file and always pass the call on to celement_gcd. This would mean that we leave the normalisation up to the actual implementation of the polynomial ring, rather than enforcing it across all base rings using the template file. We would then also have to make sure that all celement_gcd methods are happy to deal with zero arguments.
What do you think?
Sebastian
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 16 ; followup: ↓ 20 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
Perhaps you could have a look at this one?
I will (hopefully) take a look later this week.
As the last question about the implementation (for this method), I noticed that polynomials over QQ in SAGE have the method
denominator
, which clearly this implementation should overwrite. On which level/ in which file should this be done?
You would add a method denominator()
to Polynomial_rational_dense_flint
.
Finally, here are the performance timings, in each case for ten random polynomials of degree 2000, first the time for the generic implementation and then the time for this implementation with FLINT:
If I understand this correctly, then addition is 20x faster than the previous implementation just because you avoid a remalloc?
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 17 ; followup: ↓ 21 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
Since the gcd of two polynomials is only defined up to multiplication by rationals, what's the *right* way of dealing with this? I think one can make a good argument for always returning the same normalisation. This would also mean that we do *not* necessarily have gcd(a,0) == a. This is currently the way it's handled in the file polynomial_template.pxi. If we want to normalise the gcd, in which way should this be done? If it's nonzero..
I think we should have gcd(a,0) = 1
because this is what gcd(1/2,0)
returns. I would like to avoid to put this logic in the celement_gcd implementations but if we have to then ... well we have to :)
Personally though, I am more in favour of the second option, since this might lead to faster code when working with QQ[]. In this case, we should remove the handling of the above two cases from the template file and always pass the call on to celement_gcd. This would mean that we leave the normalisation up to the actual implementation of the polynomial ring, rather than enforcing it across all base rings using the template file. We would then also have to make sure that all celement_gcd methods are happy to deal with zero arguments.
This might be worth raising on [sagedevel] where people care much more about this than I do, i.e. I guess it is a relevant corner case for number theory and thus people might have strong feelings about it?
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 18 Changed 9 years ago by
As the last question about the implementation (for this method), I noticed that polynomials over QQ in SAGE have the method
denominator
, which clearly this implementation should overwrite. On which level/ in which file should this be done?
You would add a method
denominator()
toPolynomial_rational_dense_flint
.
OK, I'll do that.
Finally, here are the performance timings, in each case for ten random polynomials of degree 2000, first the time for the generic implementation and then the time for this implementation with FLINT:
If I understand this correctly, then addition is 20x faster than the previous implementation just because you avoid a remalloc?
Yes. Actually, throughout I am now trying very hard to reuse variables rather than allocating new variables all over the place. It makes the code quite ugly... but definitely faster, which this is about, right? :)
comment:21 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to malb:
Replying to spancratz: I think we should have
gcd(a,0) = 1
because this is whatgcd(1/2,0)
returns. I would like to avoid to put this logic in the celement_gcd implementations but if we have to then ... well we have to :)
I didn't mean the above for rational numbers a
, but for rational polynomials
a
. Your integer example above highlights that
gcd
doesn't necessarily guarantee
gcd(a, 0) == a
. The behaviour of
gcd
for integers suggests the method should return the monic normalisation. However, the current logic in
template_polynomial.pxi
doesn't do this, for example:
sage: R.<t> = PolynomialRing(IntegerModRing(3), 't') sage: f = 2*t + 1 sage: type(f) <type 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_zmod_flint.Polynomial_zmod_flint'> sage: gcd(f, R(0)) 2*t + 1
In the above case, the monic version would be t + 2
.
This might be worth raising on [sagedevel] where people care much more about this than I do, i.e. I guess it is a relevant corner case for number theory and thus people might have strong feelings about it?
OK, I'll do this.
Sebastian
comment:22 Changed 9 years ago by
I have now opened another ticket, #6941, to change the template implementation, pushing all the logic into the celement_foo
methods rather than taking away the cases
gcd(a,0)
and
gcd(0,b)
on a higher level. The patch is very short  it only does the small expected changes to the template file and the GF2X and ZMOD linkage files, plus one other file in the hyperelliptic curve module where the current behaviour of xgcd is used.
Martin, would you be happy to review that patch?
Sebastian
comment:23 Changed 9 years ago by
I've now implemented almost all functionality from the former generic implementation, most of it massively improved through FLINT. There are also some new methods. All of this is in the patch I uploaded just now, still as a difference to the 20090911 patch. Running make test still results in many failures, although fewer than last week.
Sebastian
comment:24 Changed 9 years ago by
Apart from a bad indentation in polynomial_quotient_ring_element
, for which I didn't want to reupload a patch, I am now down to the following doctest failures:
sage t "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/padic_lseries.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_generic.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/padics.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_curve_isogeny.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/tests/book_stein_modform.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/rings/qqbar.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx" sage t "devel/sage/sage/modular/modform/element.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/modular/overconvergent/genus0.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/modular/hecke/submodule.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/structure/sage_object.pyx"
All but one of them are memory problems, either in mpq_canonicalize
(called in the
getitem
method) or in
fmpz_poly_mul
called in
celement_mul
. At the moment, I do not know how to resolve these.
Sebastian
comment:25 Changed 9 years ago by
Almost all of the memory problems are now resolved. They were arising because I wrongly assumed fmpz_
methods (*not*
fmpz_poly_
; they work just fine) supported aliasing of the inputs and outputs. Apart from the method
fmpz_neg
, I think I have fixed this in all places where I am using it, apart from the squarefree decomposition in polynomial_rational_flint.pyx. I'll rewrite that, too, but I've already checked that this method does not get called in the following last two remaining doctest failures:
The following tests failed: sage t "devel/sage/sage/rings/qqbar.py" sage t "devel/sage/sage/structure/sage_object.pyx"
The test in qqbar.py
that seems to break down is the following piece of code:
sage: x = polygen(AA) sage: r = QQbar.polynomial_root(x^5  x  1, CIF(RIF(0.1, 0.2), RIF(1.0, 1.1))); r sage: r.real().minpoly()
The test in sage_object.pyx
that breaks has to do with unpickling, and it's triggered by the following two lines:
sage: std = os.environ['SAGE_DATA'] + '/extcode/pickle_jar/pickle_jar.tar.bz2' sage: sage.structure.sage_object.unpickle_all(std)
I will try to chase down the first problem a little further than the minpoly()
function, perhaps I can resolve it myself. But any help with the second problem in particular would be very much appreciated.
Sebastian
comment:26 Changed 9 years ago by
 Cc mhansen added
I've added a patch which fixes the unpickling problem making sure that the old polynomials unpickle as the new polynomials.
comment:27 followup: ↓ 28 Changed 9 years ago by
This gives the same answers for me before and after the patch.
sage: x = polygen(AA) sage: r = QQbar.polynomial_root(x^5  x  1, CIF(RIF(0.1, 0.2), RIF(1.0, 1.1))); r sage: r.real().minpoly()
The only difference is the test on line 2262. It expected
cp = AA.common_polynomial(1/2*x^4  1/95*x^3  1/2*x^2  4)
but got
cp = AA.common_polynomial(x^4  2/95*x^3  x^2  8)
I think that this is okay since they only differ by a multiple of 2 and thus have the exact same roots.
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 27 ; followup: ↓ 29 Changed 9 years ago by
Hello Mike,
Thank you for fixing the unpickling problem!
About the second problem, the one in qqbar.py
, are you saying that the following code
sage: x = polygen(AA) sage: r = QQbar.polynomial_root(x^5  x  1, CIF(RIF(0.1, 0.2), RIF(1.0, 1.1))); r sage: r.real().minpoly()
now executes without problems on your setup? On mine, it still crashes with a segmentation fault. I've uploaded the complete traceback to http://sage.pastebin.com/m5249e09. I still seems strange to me that the traceback doesn't seem to contain methods that this patch modifies directly.
The other difference you mention is no problem, of course. That's because I have taken care to ensure that methods returning results that are only defined up to units return monic normalisations.
Many thanks again for taking a look at this patch,
Sebastian
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 28 ; followup: ↓ 30 Changed 9 years ago by
As said, the above three lines of code extracted from the qqbar.py
doctests still cause a problem for me. I've chased it down for the last three hours now, and the following code breaks on my setup:
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = 422826864750/4773824138704099*x^18  8134231405059/9547648277408198*x^16 + 11311262264874/4773824138704099*x^14  12814039341867/4773824138704099*x^12  8509019074752/4773824138704099*x^10 + 707815020483605/9547648277408198*x^8  1781974116019893/4773824138704099*x^6+ 1316925435907659/4773824138704099*x^4  1088322011947813/9547648277408198*x^2  1/2*x + 1289415905296105/4773824138704099 sage: g = 76937/62774*x^19  30011/62774*x^18 + 144945/31387*x^17 + 174999/62774*x^16  377075/31387*x^15  354028/31387*x^14 + 929437/62774*x^13 + 983229/62774*x^12  725164/31387*x^11  984029/31387*x^10 + 945031/62774*x^9 + 1132829/31387*x^8 + 277343/31387*x^7  1107925/62774*x^6  432756/31387*x^5  23909/62774*x^4 + 202423/31387*x^3 + 167709/31387*x^2  10729/31387*x  47216/31387 sage: f(g)
I've upload a complete log of the session to [url]http://sage.pastebin.com/m7757deba[/url]. I am happy also reimplement polynomial composition using FLINT, it should be a lot faster than the generic code for this anyway. (Idea: To compose F = f/d with G = g/e, where f, g are in ZZ[] and d, e are integers, first "rescale" F by 1/e  this method is implemented already  and then compose the new polynomial with g. There is a FLINT function for the last part.) However, I don't know how or where the generic code is implemented in SAGE.
Sebastian
comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 29 ; followup: ↓ 31 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
As said, the above three lines of code extracted from the
qqbar.py
doctests still cause a problem for me. I've chased it down for the last three hours now, and the following code breaks on my setup:
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = 422826864750/4773824138704099*x^18  8134231405059/9547648277408198*x^16 + 11311262264874/4773824138704099*x^14  12814039341867/4773824138704099*x^12  8509019074752/4773824138704099*x^10 + 707815020483605/9547648277408198*x^8  1781974116019893/4773824138704099*x^6+ 1316925435907659/4773824138704099*x^4  1088322011947813/9547648277408198*x^2  1/2*x + 1289415905296105/4773824138704099 sage: g = 76937/62774*x^19  30011/62774*x^18 + 144945/31387*x^17 + 174999/62774*x^16  377075/31387*x^15  354028/31387*x^14 + 929437/62774*x^13 + 983229/62774*x^12  725164/31387*x^11  984029/31387*x^10 + 945031/62774*x^9 + 1132829/31387*x^8 + 277343/31387*x^7  1107925/62774*x^6  432756/31387*x^5  23909/62774*x^4 + 202423/31387*x^3 + 167709/31387*x^2  10729/31387*x  47216/31387 sage: f(g)I've upload a complete log of the session to [url]http://sage.pastebin.com/m7757deba[/url]. I am happy also reimplement polynomial composition using FLINT, it should be a lot faster than the generic code for this anyway. (Idea: To compose F = f/d with G = g/e, where f, g are in ZZ[] and d, e are integers, first "rescale" F by 1/e  this method is implemented already  and then compose the new polynomial with g. There is a FLINT function for the last part.) However, I don't know how or where the generic code is implemented in SAGE.
Sebastian
This does not crash for me on 64bit linux with both FLINT 1.3.0 and FLINT 1.5.0. You should try the FLINT 1.5.0 spkg at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhansen/flint1.5.0.spkg.
Mike
sage: f = 422826864750/4773824138704099*x^{18  8134231405059/9547648277408198*x}16 + 11311262264874/4773824138704099*x^{14  12814039341867/4773824138704099*x}12  8509019074752/4773824138704099*x^{10 + 707815020483605/9547648277408198*x}8  1781974116019893/4773824138704099*x^{6+ 1316925435907659/4773824138704099*x}4  1088322011947813/9547648277408198*x^{2  1/2*x + 1289415905296105/4773824138704099 sage: g = 76937/62774*x}19  30011/62774*x^{18 + 144945/31387*x}17 + 174999/62774*x^{16  377075/31387*x}15  354028/31387*x^{14 + 929437/62774*x}13 + 983229/62774*x^{12  725164/31387*x}11  984029/31387*x^{10 + 945031/62774*x}9 + 1132829/31387*x^{8 + 277343/31387*x}7  1107925/62774*x^{6  432756/31387*x}5  23909/62774*x^{4 + 202423/31387*x}3 + 167709/31387*x^{2  10729/31387*x  47216/31387 sage: f(g) }}} }
I've upload a complete log of the session to [url]http://sage.pastebin.com/m7757deba[/url]. I am happy also reimplement polynomial composition using FLINT, it should be a lot faster than the generic code for this anyway. (Idea: To compose F = f/d with G = g/e, where f, g are in ZZ[] and d, e are integers, first "rescale" F by 1/e  this method is implemented already  and then compose the new polynomial with g. There is a FLINT function for the last part.) However, I don't know how or where the generic code
comment:31 in reply to: ↑ 30 Changed 9 years ago by
Firstly, I am sorry for the bad patches I uploaded earlier  I didn't realise that new files aren't included in a patch by default. I have changed this now and uploaded a new complete patch fmpq_20090925.patch
.
There is one problem with the squarefree_decomposition
method, which for some unknown reason was causing memory failures in the latest version. For the time being, I've just changed it back to my earlier code, which still uses bad aliasing of arguments to
fmpz_
methods.
Mike: Thanks for taking a look at the composition problem, too. The failure on my setup must be rather strange, since the traceback also includes finance/fractal.so
. I don't think I understand the
call
method well enough to do much about it. In any case, I think the current code (catching polynomial composition, and otherwise passing the call on to
Polynomial.call
) should be preferable.
I am not quite sure what I should do at this point. I think it would be best to wait until the release of the next stable release of SAGE and then look at this again with the goal to have sorted out as soon as possible. What do other people think? If someone has a suggestion for what I should do at the moment, while I might not have too much time during the next few weeks, I should definitely be able to look at this every weekend.
Sebastian
comment:32 Changed 9 years ago by
Sebastian, what's the current status of this code? What needs to be done to finish it etc?
comment:33 Changed 9 years ago by
 Report Upstream set to N/A
The plan is to rebase this on #383, which should take care of two segfaults that currently remain.
comment:34 Changed 9 years ago by
 Cc malb added
I've now added two patches to this. The first one trac383.patch
contains all three patches from ticket #383. The second patch
trac4000_rebase_431rc0_383.patch
is the main patch from this patch, which is now rebased on 4.3.1.rc0 *and* the first patch. With this, the only remaining doctests failures are
sage t "devel/sageqq/sage/combinat/species/composition_species.py" ********************************************************************** File "/scratch/pancratz/sage4.3.1.rc0/devel/sageqq/sage/combinat/species/composition_species.py", line 235: sage: S.isotype_generating_series().coefficients(5) #indirect Expected: [1, t, t^2 + t, t^3 + t^2 + t, t^4 + t^3 + 2*t^2 + t] Got: [1, t, 1/2*t^2, 1/6*t^3, 1/24*t^4] ********************************************************************** File "/scratch/pancratz/sage4.3.1.rc0/devel/sageqq/sage/combinat/species/composition_species.py", line 247: sage: Par.isotype_generating_series().coefficients(5) Expected: [1, t, t^2 + t, t^3 + t^2 + t, t^4 + t^3 + 2*t^2 + t] Got: [1, t, 1/2*t^2 + 1/2*t, 1/6*t^3 + 1/2*t^2 + 1/6*t, 1/24*t^4 + 1/4*t^3 + 7/24*t^2 + 1/24*t] ********************************************************************** 1 items had failures: 2 of 15 in __main__.example_11 ***Test Failed*** 2 failures. For whitespace errors, see the file /home/pancratz/.sage//tmp/.doctest_composition_species.py [5.7 s] exit code: 1024  The following tests failed: sage t "devel/sageqq/sage/combinat/species/composition_species.py"
I am not sure what's going on here. Could someone else please take a look at this?
Thanks!
Sebastian
comment:35 Changed 9 years ago by
In addition to my earlier post, I seems there is a problem with the first patch (the one collecting the three patches from #383 for convenience), which I am sorry for. Nonetheless, applying the three patches straight from that ticket and adding the second patch above yields the desired state, apart from the one remaining doctest.
Sebastian
comment:36 Changed 9 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
The above ticket provided by Mike Hanses applies to 4.3.1.rc0 after applying the three tickets from #383. We've tested on two separate machines and it passes all doctests.
Thanks to Mike for helping to track down the (hopefully) last remaining bug before lunchtime!
I'll go over the code again in the next week or two, adding further documentation and more doctests. In the meantime, I would be very grateful if other people interested in reviewing it could start looking at the code and provide further comments.
Sebastian
comment:37 Changed 9 years ago by
In the above three patches, I've now added some further documentation and made cosmetic changes to the layout in some files. I still want to add many more test cases for the polynomial arithmetic. Please let me know if there is something else that you think I ought to change.
Sebastian
comment:38 Changed 9 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sagewishlist to sage4.3.2
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
 Summary changed from [with patch, needs work] Implement QQ['x'] via Flint ZZ['x'] + denominator to Implement QQ['x'] via Flint ZZ['x'] + denominator
Sebastian, I am marking this ticket as needs_work since you are saying that you want to add more tests. Just mark it needs_review when you feel it's ready.
comment:39 Changed 9 years ago by
@Sebastian, what do I have to apply in which order to test your patches? @Alex, we can probably start testing stuff except we shouldn't complain about missing doctests yet.
comment:40 Changed 9 years ago by
I believe all of the above patches in the order they appear.
comment:41 Changed 9 years ago by
Martin: Yes, they should apply to 4.3.1.rc0 in the order they appear. Although, after applying the main patch, there should be some choice on the order in which you apply the patches as they mostly (apart from fmpq_poly and fmpq_poly_alias) touch distinct sets of files, I think.
Morally speaking, this should definitely be needs_review
(although I understand if someone would formally want to argue that this should be
needs_work
), and it'd be great if you could let me know of any changes I should make, including doctests. The ones I intend to add weren't for any specific method, but rather for the arithmetic in
\QQ[t]
, which I think would have to go to the top of the file polynomial_rational_flint
since the methods themselves are in the polynomial template file.
Thanks,
Sebastian
comment:42 Changed 9 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Having applied all the patches, I'm getting:
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: S.<a> = R.quotient(3*x^3 + 3/2*x 1/3) sage: 3 * a^3 + S.modulus() Error: unable to alloc/realloc memory /home/ghitza/sagedevel/local/bin/sagesage: line 206: 13092 Aborted (core dumped) sageipython "$@" i
(This is a doctest in rings/polynomial/polynomial_quotient_ring_element.py
, which is how I ran into it.)
I don't know if it matters, but this is happening on a 32bit machine.
comment:43 followup: ↓ 45 Changed 9 years ago by
There's clearly something dodgy going on here. On my 32bit laptop, with a clean 4.3.1.rc0 install and only the patches from this thread,
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: S.<a> = R.quotient(3*x^3 + 3/2*x 1/3) sage: 3 * a^3 + S.modulus() 3/2*a + 1/3 sage: timeit('_ = 3 * a^3 + S.modulus()') 5 loops, best of 3: 14.3 s per loop
That is, it takes forever... Alex, could you perhaps elaborate on your setup?
Thanks, Sebastian
comment:44 followup: ↓ 46 Changed 9 years ago by
Here is a simpler instance of the problem:
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = 3/2*x  1/3 sage: %time _ = f % f CPU times: user 5.67 s, sys: 0.17 s, total: 5.84 s Wall time: 5.86 s
I do *not* think that the problem is a coercion problem. After inserting "print" statements into the Cython code at various points, I instead think the code in the block from line 881 in fmpq_poly_linkage.pxi actually takes this long, although I do not understand at all why this might be the case.
The two lines at actually seem to take time (assuming that inserting "print" statements is a valid way to determine this) are
fmpz_pow_ui(t, lead, m) fmpz_mul(r.den, t, a.den)
but, once again, I've got not clue why this might be the case.
Tomorrow or on Tuesday, I will try to reproduce the problem in plain C. If I manage to do this, I'll forward it to Bill Hart. If not, I wouldn't really know what else to look into.
Sebastian
comment:45 in reply to: ↑ 43 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
There's clearly something dodgy going on here. On my 32bit laptop, with a clean 4.3.1.rc0 install and only the patches from this thread,
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: S.<a> = R.quotient(3*x^3 + 3/2*x 1/3) sage: 3 * a^3 + S.modulus() 3/2*a + 1/3 sage: timeit('_ = 3 * a^3 + S.modulus()') 5 loops, best of 3: 14.3 s per loop
I've tried a couple more times and I'm still getting the memory problem followed by crash and core dump. I'm running 32bit archlinux on a Dell laptop, with version 4.4.2 of gcc. It's a clean build of sage4.3.1 with the patches here.
I also have a macbook running 64bit archlinux. It's busy doing other things now, but I can try to test this on it later.
comment:46 in reply to: ↑ 44 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
Here is a simpler instance of the problem:
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = 3/2*x  1/3 sage: %time _ = f % f CPU times: user 5.67 s, sys: 0.17 s, total: 5.84 s Wall time: 5.86 s
On my laptop, this gives me
  Sage Version 4.3.1, Release Date: 20100120   Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() for information.   sage: sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: sage: f = 3/2*x  1/3 sage: sage: %time _ = f % f Error: unable to alloc/realloc memory /opt/sage4.3.1archlinux32biti686Linux/local/bin/sagesage: line 206: 17772 Aborted (core dumped) sageipython "$@" i
comment:47 followup: ↓ 48 Changed 9 years ago by
I am sorry for only getting on with this today. Just now I tried to reproduce the problem in plain C with FLINT, but needless to say, I didn't manage. A simpleminded reproduction of the relevant code executed in no time and without any problems. Currently, I am completely out of ideas on how to fix this problem. That's why I'll raise the issue on sagedevel and conclude this message with a description of the behaviour that I experience on my machine (Lenovo T500 laptop, Intel Core2 Duo CPU, Ubuntu 9.10):
After applying all patches from this ticket to a 4.3.1.rc0 installation, modify the else
block from line 882 in
sage/libs/flint/fmpq_poly_linkage.pxi
to the following:
print "In case 3B" t = fmpz_init(limbs) print "den_fit_limbs" __fmpq_poly_den_fit_limbs(r, limbs + fmpz_size(a.den)) print "pow_ui" fmpz_pow_ui(t, lead, m) print "mul" fmpz_mul(r.den, t, a.den) print "clear" fmpz_clear(t)
This only includes the print
commands.
Then, upon executing the same sequence of commands that produce the crash in Alex' previous message, I receive the following output:
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = 3/2*x  1/3 sage: %time _ = f % f In case 3B den_fit_limbs pow_ui mul clear CPU times: user 19.10 s, sys: 0.54 s, total: 19.64 s Wall time: 19.72 s
What I find very strange (besides the fact that this takes 20s to obtain the correct result) is that there are two very noticeable delays of a couple of seconds, one after the output "pow_ui"
, and another after the output of
"mul"
.
Sebastian
comment:48 in reply to: ↑ 47 Changed 9 years ago by
Did you do a sanity checks on the inputs to each function? E.g. what is limbs
, What is r
? What does fmpz_size(a.den)
return? and so forth? Alex error message complains about some allocation not working so I'd assume some wrong size (negative or unitialised?) is passed to FLINT?
comment:49 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Martin,
Thank you for joining in! I've just done this now and posted on sagedevel. The problem doesn't seem to be in fmpz_pow_ui or fmpz_mul, but in fmpz_poly_pseudo_divrem. Well, I am not sure it's a problem in FLINT, since I couldn't reproduce it in plain C yet, but's related to that bit in the code rather than the later calls.
Sebastian
comment:50 Changed 9 years ago by
I've just uploaded a file which if applied adds some debug output. If the file is copied into the directory devel/sage
then from within the directory it can be applied via
patch p1 < trac4000_fmpz_poly_pseudo_divrem_debug.diff
Sebastian
comment:51 Changed 9 years ago by
Dear Alex,
I've just uploaded a patch which should fix problem you reported, which was related to a bug in FLINT that you stumbled upon (see sagedevel). Is there anything else that you think I should change related to this ticket, at the moment?
Thank you very much again for looking at this!
Sebastian
comment:52 Changed 9 years ago by
I have just applied your last patch, and I confirm that it gets rid of the nasty doctest failure.
I'd like to test this on some more machines to see if all is well. And it will most likely have to be rebased, since it touches so many files. For now I'll keep using 4.3.1, on which it applies fine.
comment:53 Changed 9 years ago by
When there's a version which applies to 4.3.2 I'll be happy to test it too.
comment:54 Changed 9 years ago by
Dear John,
I am sorry I am only reading this now  I was out of the country for a while this past week. I am busy teaching on Monday and Tuesday, but I can hopefully (try to rebase) this to 4.3.2 in the second half of the week.
Thank you for offering your help with testing this,
Sebastian
comment:55 Changed 9 years ago by
I think 7 consecutive patches is too much to ask  please may we have a single combined patch?
comment:56 Changed 9 years ago by
I've just uploaded a new patch combining all previous ones, rebased to 4.3.3. I am currently running a test with sage t devel/sage/sage
and I am certainly expecting the odd new doctest failure with 4.3.3, but overall I expect it to mostly work fine. In any case, I will post the results tomorrow.
Sebastian
comment:57 followup: ↓ 58 Changed 9 years ago by
The following tests failed: sage t devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/infinite_polynomial_element.py # 1 doctests failed sage t devel/sage/sage/structure/parent.pyx # 2 doctests failed
More precisely,
sage t "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/infinite_polynomial_element.py" ********************************************************************** File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/infinite_polynomial_element.py", line 853: sage: type(Z._P) Expected: <class 'sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring.MPolynomialRing_polydict'> Got: <class 'sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring.MPolynomialRing_polydict_domain'> ********************************************************************** 1 items had failures: 1 of 12 in __main__.example_26 ***Test Failed*** 1 failures. For whitespace errors, see the file /home/suser/.sage//tmp/.doctest_infinite_polynomial_element.py [3.4 s]  The following tests failed: sage t "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/infinite_polynomial_element.py"
and
sage t "devel/sage/sage/structure/parent.pyx" ********************************************************************** File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/devel/sage/sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 162: sage: sage.structure.parent.raise_attribute_error(QQ[x].gen(), "bla") Expected: Traceback (most recent call last): ... AttributeError: 'Polynomial_rational_dense' object has no attribute 'bla' Got: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_2[3]>", line 1, in <module> sage.structure.parent.raise_attribute_error(QQ[x].gen(), "bla")###line 162: sage: sage.structure.parent.raise_attribute_error(QQ[x].gen(), "bla") File "parent.pyx", line 169, in sage.structure.parent.raise_attribute_error (sage/structure/parent.c:2611) AttributeError: 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint.Polynomial_rational_dense_flint' object has no attribute 'bla' ********************************************************************** File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/devel/sage/sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 220: sage: getattr_from_other_class(QQ[x].one(), A, "lazy_attribute") Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_3[8]>", line 1, in <module> getattr_from_other_class(QQ[x].one(), A, "lazy_attribute")###line 220: sage: getattr_from_other_class(QQ[x].one(), A, "lazy_attribute") File "parent.pyx", line 245, in sage.structure.parent.getattr_from_other_class (sage/structure/parent.c:2953) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/lib/python/sitepackages/sage/misc/lazy_attribute.py", line 502, in __get__ setattr(a, self.f.__name__, result) AttributeError: 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint.Polynomial_rational_dense_flint' object has no attribute 'lazy_attribute' ********************************************************************** 2 items had failures: 1 of 4 in __main__.example_2 1 of 10 in __main__.example_3 ***Test Failed*** 2 failures. For whitespace errors, see the file /home/suser/.sage//tmp/.doctest_parent.py [9.9 s]
I think the correct fix for the first problem is a change in the docstring, but I am not sure about this. For the second one, the docstring needs to be changed. And, finally, for the third one (about the lazy_attribute), I have no idea.
Can someone else please comment on this?
Many thanks, Sebastian
comment:58 in reply to: ↑ 57 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz: Hi, sorry for the late reply:
sage t "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/infinite_polynomial_element.py" ********************************************************************** sage: type(Z._P) Expected: <class 'sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring.MPolynomialRing_polydict'> Got: <class 'sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ring.MPolynomialRing_polydict_domain'> **********************************************************************
If Z._P
is over a domain, then yes change the doctest.
sage: sage.structure.parent.raise_attribute_error(QQ[x].gen(), "bla") Expected: Traceback (most recent call last): ... AttributeError: 'Polynomial_rational_dense' object has no attribute 'bla' Got: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_2[3]>", line 1, in <module> sage.structure.parent.raise_attribute_error(QQ[x].gen(), "bla")###line 162: sage: sage.structure.parent.raise_attribute_error(QQ[x].gen(), "bla") File "parent.pyx", line 169, in sage.structure.parent.raise_attribute_error (sage/structure/parent.c:2611) AttributeError: 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint.Polynomial_rational_dense_flint' object has no attribute 'bla'
Yes, you need to change the doctest.
Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_3[8]>", line 1, in <module> getattr_from_other_class(QQ[x].one(), A, "lazy_attribute")###line 220: sage: getattr_from_other_class(QQ[x].one(), A, "lazy_attribute") File "parent.pyx", line 245, in sage.structure.parent.getattr_from_other_class (sage/structure/parent.c:2953) File "/home/suser/sage4.3.3/local/lib/python/sitepackages/sage/misc/lazy_attribute.py", line 502, in __get__ setattr(a, self.f.__name__, result) AttributeError: 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint.Polynomial_rational_dense_flint' object has no attribute 'lazy_attribute'
You probably need to implement lazy_attribute
. I don't know what it is supposed to be doing, so you should ask on [sagedevel].
comment:59 Changed 9 years ago by
 Reviewers set to John Cremona, Martin Albrecht, Alex Ghitza
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
I just checked that the combined patch applies fine to 4.3.5. I got just two doctest failures, as in the above report. Otherwise all pass (64bit ubuntu).
For parent.pyx: this must be the same thing as in #8332? You could just delete that doctest, since it tests something on an essentailly random class to which it used to apply but no longer does.
Let's get these last two little things fixed, then this can at last get merged!
comment:60 Changed 9 years ago by
On 4.4 there needs to be a little rebasing:
applying trac4000_433_combined.patch patching file sage/rings/integer.pyx Hunk #1 FAILED at 1688 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED  saving rejects to file sage/rings/integer.pyx.rej patching file sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py Hunk #1 succeeded at 2622 with fuzz 2 (offset 0 lines). patching file sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx Hunk #1 FAILED at 1096 1 out of 4 hunks FAILED  saving rejects to file sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx.rej patching file sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py Hunk #1 FAILED at 604 1 out of 1 hunks FAILED  saving rejects to file sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element_generic.py.rej patch failed, unable to continue (try v) patch failed, rejects left in working dir errors during apply, please fix and refresh trac4000_433_combined.patch
comment:61 Changed 9 years ago by
Dear all,
For my own work, I have rewritten the fmpq_poly_ methods in plain C with a FLINTlike interface and set up more detailed test routines (triggering essentially every line of code). From memory (since I have the relevant sheets of paper on my desk in Oxford), as a result of that I found three possible memory leaks.
During the last few days, I was wondering whether it might be better to include this C code instead of the Cython code from the patch? I somehow feel that this would be cleaner, however, this might just be me preferring C to Cython.
As for a possible schedule, I recently signed up to attend Sage Days 23 at Leiden, which might be a very convenient place to discuss this and work on the code as necessary. Perhaps it might then be possible to review this at least before the end of Sage Days 24 in Linz, if not before that.
Best wishes, Sebastian
comment:62 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Sebastian,
I was just wondering what was up with this ticket yesterday. If you think this is eventually going to make it into FLINT itself, it may be better to provide the C (or even a patched FLINT spkg). Otherwise, Cython is preferable as many more people in the Sage community will be able and willing to edit it.
Given the history of this ticket, I would be more comfortable with first a very clean, straightforward implementation based on FLINT (without avoiding allocation at all costs, the NULL denominator savings, etc.) and get that fully vetted, refereed, and in. Hopefully that should be a simpler task (i.e. less endless chasing down segfaults, random doctest failures, and a much simpler referee process with a high confidence in the correctness of the implementation). That should (I'd guess) already be a significant performance improvement (right?). Once we've done that, then we can go ahead and optimize things further.
comment:63 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Robert,
Thank you for the suggestions. I've been in touch with Bill Hart and he is quite keen to have a module for Q[t] in FLINT. Given this, I think the following seems sensible:
 Make a separate spkg for Q[t] on top of FLINT
 Check that the interface for Q[t] is such that it will require as little work as possible during the antipated change from FLINT 1 to FLINT 2
 Go over the C code again, simplifying the fmpz_t memory management where possible, since this won't be necessary in FLINT 2 any more
 Go over the documentation again
 Add further test cases
I'm happy to do all the work on the C side of things. Hopefully, I can ask someone for help regarding the Sage spkg side of things at the workshop in Leiden.
Best wishes, Sebastian
comment:64 Changed 9 years ago by
On sage.math, qq.patch applies to sage4.5 and passes all tests except the pickling test:
The following tests failed: sage t long devel/sage/sage/misc/explain_pickle.py # 2 doctests failed sage t long devel/sage/sage/structure/sage_object.pyx # 0 doctests failed
And it's damned fast, compared to what is in sage now:
sage: R.<x> = QQ[] sage: f = R.random_element(degree=100) sage: timeit('f*f') 625 loops, best of 3: 29 µs per loop sage: S.<x> = PolynomialRing(QQ,implementation='ntl') sage: g = S.random_element(degree=100) sage: timeit('g*g') 625 loops, best of 3: 1.29 ms per loop sage: 1.29/0.029 44.4827586206897 sage: f = R.random_element(degree=1000) sage: g = S.random_element(degree=1000) sage: timeit('f*f') 625 loops, best of 3: 1.31 ms per loop sage: timeit('g*g') 5 loops, best of 3: 104 ms per loop sage: 104/1.31 79.3893129770992
comment:65 Changed 9 years ago by
Comments
 add copyright note to sage/libs/flint/fmpq_poly.pxd
 delete old example module
 add copyright note to polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pxd
 add class docstring to Polynomial_rational_flint and to the file
 There are many r""" which aren't needed
 __init__ doesn't document parameters
 many functions need docstrings
 ell_foo.py remove?
 remove the explicit implementation="FLINT" stuff?
comment:66 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Martin,
Thank you for the feedback. I've just uploaded three separate patches. I'd be grateful if you could have another look at the main patch file and provide some more feedback!
Please note that at the moment there are a few test failures, which weren't there before, but I'll fix them during the next few days and upload another patch then.
Thanks, Sebastian
comment:67 Changed 9 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Dear all,
I've uploaded a set of four patches now, which can be applied in any order. They should pass all doctests, although on sage.math there is an error as follows
sage t "devel/sageqq/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx" Error: unable to alloc/realloc memory
I do not know why this error is there since this test works just fine for me on my laptop.
The test failures I mentioned in the earlier post have all been resolved.
Sebastian
comment:68 Changed 9 years ago by
 Reviewers changed from John Cremona, Martin Albrecht, Alex Ghitza to John Cremona, Martin Albrecht, Alex Ghitza, Harald Schilly
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
i tested on ubuntu 9.04 32bit, Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU and gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.35ubuntu4) ... 2 times the same failure in "en" and "fr" tutorial:
File "/scratch/scratch/schilly/sage/sage4.5/devel/sage/doc/en/tutorial/tour_polynomial.rst", line 166: sage: R.<x> = PolynomialRing(QQ) sage: S.<y> = PolynomialRing(QQ) sage: x == y Expected: False Got: True
comment:69 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Harald,
Thank you for testing this. The easiest way to deal with this is to simply leave the current behaviour unchanged by not overwriting hash
or any of the comparison methods. This is a bit of a shame since the Cbased test for equality should be much faster than the inherited method, but I think it is the sensible decision at this point. I will update the patches accordingly later.
Sebastian
comment:70 followup: ↓ 71 Changed 9 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
The ticket now consists of five patches:
#. trac4000_0.patch #. trac4000_1.patch #. trac4000_doctest_output.patch #. trac4000_fmpq_poly_c.patch #. trac4000_fmpq_poly_pxd.patch
Only 0 and 1 have to be applied in this order. The remaining patches can be applied in any order. After having removed the methods for comparisons (which caused a problem as Harald noticed above), these should now hopefully be very, very close to finalised. I've also included the signal handling around most C library calls.
Best wishes, and many thanks for looking at this ticket!
Sebastian
PS: Perhaps someone with the appropriate rights could delete all the unnecessary attachments to this ticket? I don't think we need the earlier ones any more. In any case, I accidentally added this one, trac4000_fmpq_poly_c.2.patch
.
comment:71 in reply to: ↑ 70 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
PS: Perhaps someone with the appropriate rights could delete all the unnecessary attachments to this ticket? I don't think we need the earlier ones any more. In any case, I accidentally added this one,
trac4000_fmpq_poly_c.2.patch
.
Done.
comment:72 Changed 9 years ago by
Some minor quibbles:
 You might want to clean up the commit messages in the patches. Right now they don't include the ticket number, etc. If you're using queues this is
hg qrefresh e
when the relevant patch is at the top of the applied part of the queue.
 I'm not sure it's necessary to have things like
NOTES: (S Pancratz) Extracted from polynomial_template.pxi.
since the files are all under revision control, and in fact every line has a list of authors associated to it.
 It might be useful to have the cimports and the imports in separate blocks, since the cimports happen at compile time, and the imports happen at runtime, frequently on startup.
comment:73 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the suggestions. As for 1), yes, I'll do that. The note in 2) should have disappeared (along with the method hash) by applying trac4000_1.patch. Finally, I'll do 3), too. That said, I'm about to begin catching up on more than a week's administrative work, so I'll probably upload new patches very late tonight.
Sebastian
comment:74 Changed 9 years ago by
I've now made the changes that Robert suggested.
comment:75 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi, william's nagbot reminded me of this here and I installed these last 3 patches on my 4.5.2 RC build. I tried to replicate your timings, but they are less convincing than I thought:
sage: S = PolynomialRing(QQ, 'x', implementation="flint") sage: R = PolynomialRing(QQ, 'y', implementation="NTL") sage: f = R.random_element(degree=30); timeit('f*f') 625 loops, best of 3: 15.6 µs per loop sage: g = S.random_element(degree=30); timeit('g*g') 625 loops, best of 3: 14.7 µs per loop sage: f = R.random_element(degree=300); timeit('f*f') 625 loops, best of 3: 602 µs per loop sage: g = S.random_element(degree=300); timeit('g*g') 625 loops, best of 3: 350 µs per loop sage: f = R.random_element(degree=3000); timeit('f*f') 25 loops, best of 3: 15.2 ms per loop sage: g = S.random_element(degree=3000); timeit('g*g') 25 loops, best of 3: 19.5 ms per loop sage: f = R.random_element(degree=3000); timeit('f*f') 25 loops, best of 3: 16.3 ms per loop sage: g = S.random_element(degree=3000); timeit('g*g') 25 loops, best of 3: 14.3 ms per loop sage: f = R.random_element(degree=30000); timeit('f*f') 5 loops, best of 3: 1.03 s per loop sage: g = S.random_element(degree=30000); timeit('g*g') 5 loops, best of 3: 1.04 s per loop sage: f = R.random_element(degree=30000); timeit('f*f') 5 loops, best of 3: 995 ms per loop sage: g = S.random_element(degree=30000); timeit('g*g') 5 loops, best of 3: 1.09 s per loop
Maybe I did something wrong?
I also got this doctest error (my RC built w/o any errors) when checking the rings/polynomial dir.
File "/scratch/scratch/schilly/sage/sage4.5.2.rc0/devel/sagemain/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx", line 474: sage: f(x) is f Expected: True Got: False
Btw, the doctest failure in the tutorial I reported earlier is fixed.
The system were I did run this is Ubuntu 8.10 32 bit, gcc version 4.3.2 (Ubuntu 4.3.21ubuntu12), Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9400
comment:76 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Harald,
Thank you for looking at this again. The timings you provide are all obtained by the new implementation. For example, multiplying to degree 3000 polynomials takes 15ms with the new implementation as you show, but took 600ms before as explained in the description at the top of this ticket!  And this is the advertised improvement by a factor of 40 in a basic arithmetic operation :)
This is because the implementation is provided alongside the old, it is simply a drop in replacement for the old one. Using the parameter "implementation" doesn't raise an error, but it doesn't do anything useful either.
So far, I have only tested the patch against Sage 4.4.4 and so I can't comment on the last problem that you mention. I will look at that soon. As a preliminary opinion I believe that the test is a very bad one: I can see that f(x) == f should return true. However, I do not think that f(x) is f should return true. After all, f(g) for any other g, e.g. g = x*x, returns a new polynomial object.
Many thanks for looking at this,
Sebastian
comment:77 Changed 9 years ago by
Ah ok, lol. I've also complete a ptestlong and it's just this f(x) is or == f thing. I also think that this depends on what f is. if f is already an "f(x)" then f(x) should be the same as f, otherwise not. Behind the scene it is symbolic_expression(f).function(x) and I can only speculate that it makes sense to make this function behave idempotent, but only in special cases. Sorry that I don't know more about this and I also cannot comment on the code itself, apart from that it is apparently working for me ;)
comment:78 Changed 9 years ago by
I get the following error:
sage t long "devel/sagemain/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx" Error: unable to alloc/realloc memory ********************************************************************** File "/scratch/rlmill/sage4.5.1.vg/devel/sagemain/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx", line 992: sage: (1 + t)^(2^31) Expected: Traceback (most recent call last): ... OverflowError: long int too large to convert to int Got: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/scratch/rlmill/sage4.5.1.vg/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/scratch/rlmill/sage4.5.1.vg/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/scratch/rlmill/sage4.5.1.vg/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_32[11]>", line 1, in <module> (Integer(1) + t)**(Integer(2)**Integer(31))###line 992: sage: (1 + t)^(2^31) RuntimeError **********************************************************************
comment:79 followup: ↓ 80 Changed 9 years ago by
Hi Robert and Harald,
Thank you for looking at this.
About the first problem (the f(x) is f
issue), I won't fix this on this ticket yet since I believe this doctest simply should not be merged into 4.5.2 and I don't want to play catching up with the moving target that a current release candidate is. If this doctest does end up getting into 4.5.2, I'll adjust it on this ticket as soon as 4.5.2 is out.
The second problem Robert mentions is a 32bit versus 64bit issue. I'm sorry I've missed this, in particular since in the same file there is a similar issue already which I did attend to. Anyway, I've got an updated patch (just replacing 31
by
64
) which I'll upload later. With this, all tests pass on sage.math.
Thanks again,
Sebastian
PS: I'm sorry for the delay in replying to this. I've been very busy working on FLINT2, but that now compiles with ansi pedantic Wall Werror
:)
comment:80 in reply to: ↑ 79 ; followup: ↓ 81 Changed 9 years ago by
Seb,
Replying to spancratz:
PS: I'm sorry for the delay in replying to this. I've been very busy working on FLINT2, but that now compiles with
ansi pedantic Wall Werror
:)
Nice work! I think that once the 32/64 bit issue is fixed, this should be ready to go, and unless anyone else objects, I'll move it to positive review once that's finished. I think this is an impressive bit of work and definitely needs to be merged before bits start rotting.
Changed 9 years ago by
fix the 32/64bit doctest that Robert found... thus hopefully meaning this is ready for positive review!
comment:81 in reply to: ↑ 80 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to rlm:
Nice work! I think that once the 32/64 bit issue is fixed, this should be ready to go, and unless anyone else objects, I'll move it to positive review once that's finished.
I posted a patch that finishes the 32/64 bit issue.
comment:82 Changed 9 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
I can give this a positive review, since I didn't write it, and I'm just adding two trivial patches exactly as discussed above.
comment:83 Changed 8 years ago by
I'm sorry I didn't post on this ticket in a while. Just this afternoon I had a quick look at how this patch played with 4.5.3.alpha1 and I was going to make exactly the changes that William has made already  as I notice now!
In any case, a big THANK YOU for finally pushing this one over the line,
Sebastian
comment:84 Changed 8 years ago by
 Merged in set to sage4.6.alpha1
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:85 Changed 8 years ago by
 Resolution fixed deleted
 Status changed from closed to new
I get a build error on the Solaris machines t2.math and {fulvia,mark,mark2}.skynet:
building 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint' extension gcc fnostrictaliasing g O2 DNDEBUG g fwrapv O3 Wall Wstrictprototypes fPIC I/home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1/local/include/FLINT/ I/home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1/devel/sage/sage/libs/flint/ I/home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1/local//include I/home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1/local//include/csage I/home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1/devel//sage/sage/ext I/home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1/local/include/python2.6 c sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.cpp o build/temp.solaris2.10i86pc2.6/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.o std=c99 D_XPG6 w cc1plus: warning: command line option "Wstrictprototypes" is valid for Ada/C/ObjC but not for C++ In file included from /usr/include/limits.h:18:0, from /usr/local/gcc4.5.1/x86_64SunOScore2sunld/lib/gcc/i386pcsolaris2.10/4.5.1/includefixed/limits.h:169, from /usr/local/gcc4.5.1/x86_64SunOScore2sunld/lib/gcc/i386pcsolaris2.10/4.5.1/includefixed/syslimits.h:7, from /usr/local/gcc4.5.1/x86_64SunOScore2sunld/lib/gcc/i386pcsolaris2.10/4.5.1/includefixed/limits.h:34, from /home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1/local/include/python2.6/Python.h:19, from sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.cpp:4: /usr/local/gcc4.5.1/x86_64SunOScore2sunld/lib/gcc/i386pcsolaris2.10/4.5.1/includefixed/sys/feature_tests.h:345:2: error: #error "Compiler or options invalid; UNIX 03 and POSIX.12001 applications require the use of c99" error: command 'gcc' failed with exit status 1 sage: There was an error installing modified sage library code.
I'm reopening this ticket. Unless someone can post a patch within a day or so, I'll "unmerge" the changes from 4.6.alpha1.
There are also some doctest errors...
comment:86 followups: ↓ 97 ↓ 98 Changed 8 years ago by
I get this error on sage.math and several other Sage cluster and Skynet machines on which 4.6.alpha1 builds successfully:
sage t long devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/devel/sagemain/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx", line 1549: sage: R((x1)*(x+1)).hensel_lift(7, 2) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_44[3]>", line 1, in <module> R((xInteger(1))*(x+Integer(1))).hensel_lift(Integer(7), Integer(2))###line 1549: sage: R((x1)*(x+1)).hensel_lift(7, 2) File "polynomial_rational_flint.pyx", line 1588, in sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint.Polynomial_rational_flint.hensel_lift (sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.cpp:12625) H = self._pari_().polhensellift(y, p, e) File "gen.pyx", line 9460, in sage.libs.pari.gen._pari_trap (sage/libs/pari/gen.c:45047) PariError: (5)
Is this easy to fix?
comment:87 followup: ↓ 89 Changed 8 years ago by
For the Solaris / fulvia issue, what if you change the "std=c99" in module_list.py to "std=gnu99" ?
comment:88 Changed 8 years ago by
I get these doctest errors on sage.math and several other Sage cluster and Skynet machines on which 4.6.alpha1 builds successfully:
sage t long devel/sage/sage/graphs/generic_graph.py ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/devel/sagemain/sage/graphs/generic_graph.py", line 6563: sage: dsc = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_element_generic.Polynomial_rational_dense.discriminant Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_98[12]>", line 1, in <module> dsc = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_element_generic.Polynomial_rational_dense.discriminant###line 6563: sage: dsc = sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_element_generic.Polynomial_rational_dense.discriminant AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'Polynomial_rational_dense' ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/devel/sagemain/sage/graphs/generic_graph.py", line 6564: sage: K.vertices(key=dsc) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_98[13]>", line 1, in <module> K.vertices(key=dsc)###line 6564: sage: K.vertices(key=dsc) NameError: name 'dsc' is not defined
The second just follows from the first.
comment:89 in reply to: ↑ 87 ; followup: ↓ 94 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to mhansen:
For the Solaris / fulvia issue, what if you change the "std=c99" in module_list.py to "std=gnu99" ?
I get the same error message.
comment:90 Changed 8 years ago by
By the way, the unofficial, trial 4.6.alpha1 is in /home/release/sage4.6.alpha1
on the Sage cluster.
comment:91 followup: ↓ 92 Changed 8 years ago by
 Cc drkirkby added
 Status changed from new to needs_work
David, do you have any thoughts about comment 85ff?
comment:92 in reply to: ↑ 91 ; followup: ↓ 96 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to mpatel:
David, do you have any thoughts about comment 85ff?
It looks like the compiler is compiling for a different standard to what the code is. Changing to C99 mode might cure it, but that can cause problems too, as some code may not compile in C99 mode  there are some compatibility issues.
The Solaris headers are stricter than the Linux ones, so something things that you can get away with on linux, you can't on Solaris. For example, the macro infinity is not defined until C99, but linux header seems to define it irrespective of what mode the compiler is in. For Solaris, the compiler will have to be set to C99 otherwise it wont work.
I've no idea precisely what the problem is here, as others have suggested, it looks like the code does not agree with what the compiler is set to.
comment:93 Changed 8 years ago by
From around line 345 of Skynet's /usr/local/gcc4.5.1/x86_64SunOScore2sunld/lib/gcc/i386pcsolaris2.10/4.5.1/includefixed/sys/feature_tests.h
:
/* * It is invalid to compile an XPG3, XPG4, XPG4v2, or XPG5 application * using c99. The same is true for POSIX.11990, POSIX.21992, POSIX.1b, * and POSIX.1c applications. Likewise, it is invalid to compile an XPG6 * or a POSIX.12001 application with anything other than a c99 or later * compiler. Therefore, we force an error in both cases. */ #if defined(_STDC_C99) && (defined(__XOPEN_OR_POSIX) && !defined(_XPG6)) #error "Compiler or options invalid for preUNIX 03 X/Open applications \ and pre2001 POSIX applications" #elif !defined(_STDC_C99) && \ (defined(__XOPEN_OR_POSIX) && defined(_XPG6)) #error "Compiler or options invalid; UNIX 03 and POSIX.12001 applications \ require the use of c99" #endif
comment:94 in reply to: ↑ 89 ; followup: ↓ 95 Changed 8 years ago by
comment:95 in reply to: ↑ 94 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to mpatel:
Replying to mpatel:
Replying to mhansen:
For the Solaris / fulvia issue, what if you change the "std=c99" in module_list.py to "std=gnu99" ?
I get the same error message.
For what it's worth, dropping
D_XPG6
allowssage b
and the build to finish on fulvia. I'm running the tests now.
The long doctests pass, except for the errors I mentioned above, #9916, and #9924.
comment:96 in reply to: ↑ 92 ; followup: ↓ 101 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to drkirkby:
Replying to mpatel:
David, do you have any thoughts about comment 85ff?
It looks like the compiler is compiling for a different standard to what the code is. Changing to C99 mode might cure it, but that can cause problems too, as some code may not compile in C99 mode  there are some compatibility issues.
The Solaris headers are stricter than the Linux ones, so something things that you can get away with on linux, you can't on Solaris. For example, the macro infinity is not defined until C99, but linux header seems to define it irrespective of what mode the compiler is in. For Solaris, the compiler will have to be set to C99 otherwise it wont work.
How does one compile C++ with std=c99
? ;)
comment:97 in reply to: ↑ 86 ; followup: ↓ 99 Changed 8 years ago by
 Cc jdemeyer added
Replying to mpatel:
I get this error on sage.math and several other Sage cluster and Skynet machines on which 4.6.alpha1 builds successfully:
sage t long devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/devel/sagemain/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx", line 1549: sage: R((x1)*(x+1)).hensel_lift(7, 2) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/tmp/sage4.6.alpha1/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_44[3]>", line 1, in <module> R((xInteger(1))*(x+Integer(1))).hensel_lift(Integer(7), Integer(2))###line 1549: sage: R((x1)*(x+1)).hensel_lift(7, 2) File "polynomial_rational_flint.pyx", line 1588, in sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint.Polynomial_rational_flint.hensel_lift (sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.cpp:12625) H = self._pari_().polhensellift(y, p, e) File "gen.pyx", line 9460, in sage.libs.pari.gen._pari_trap (sage/libs/pari/gen.c:45047) PariError: (5)
Is this easy to fix?
No! (I wonder who decided to give such error messages.)
There are at least two ways to fix this, either in the Sage library:

sage/libs/pari/gen.pyx
diff git a/sage/libs/pari/gen.pyx b/sage/libs/pari/gen.pyx
a b 7025 7025 t0GEN(y) 7026 7026 t1GEN(p) 7027 7027 _sig_on 7028 return self.new_gen(polhensellift(self.g, t0, t1, e))7028 return self.new_gen(polhensellift(self.g, lift(t0), t1, e)) 7029 7029 7030 7030 def polisirreducible(self): 7031 7031 """
or "upstream" / in the PARI 2.4.3.svn12577.* spkg (e.g. in #9876's .p6
, too):

src/src/modules/Hensel.c
diff git a/src/src/modules/Hensel.c b/src/src/modules/Hensel.c
a b 394 394 if (N < 1) pari_err(talker, "not a positive exponent in polhensellift"); 395 395 396 396 l = lg(L); L = leafcopy(L); 397 L = lift(L); /* make sure the coeffs are integers and not intmods */ 397 398 for (i = 1; i < l; i++) 398 399 { 399 400 if (typ(gel(L,i)) != t_POL)
Probably someone more knowledgeable could fix this in a better way.
comment:98 in reply to: ↑ 86 Changed 8 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Replying to mpatel:
Is this easy to fix?
Yes, see patch. Note that I have not tested this patch yet against the rest of Sage.
comment:99 in reply to: ↑ 97 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to leif:
(I wonder who decided to give such error messages.)
This is one of the issues with PARI I would like to address, but it won't be soon.
comment:100 Changed 8 years ago by
I'm "unmerging" this from 4.6.alpha1, since alpha1 is otherwise almost ready to release. We'll still have a 4.6.alpha2 into which I can merge this important and longawaited improvement.
I can't test Jeroen's patch now. The generic_graph.py
error appears easy to fix. We just need to get sage b
to succeed on Solaris.
comment:101 in reply to: ↑ 96 ; followup: ↓ 109 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to leif:
Replying to drkirkby:
The Solaris headers are stricter than the Linux ones, so something things that you can get away with on linux, you can't on Solaris. For example, the macro infinity is not defined until C99, but linux header seems to define it irrespective of what mode the compiler is in. For Solaris, the compiler will have to be set to C99 otherwise it wont work.
How does one compile C++ with
std=c99
? ;)
It would be a lot less confusing if people used gcc to compile C and g++ to compile C++. What next, g++ to compile Fortran?
It would be nice to get rid of the endless warnings like:
cc1plus: warning: command line option "Wstrictprototypes" is valid for Ada/C/ObjC but not for C++
comment:102 followup: ↓ 115 Changed 8 years ago by
The failures in generic_graph.py
stem from the newly merged #9741. I've added a comment there.
comment:103 Changed 8 years ago by
I asked Bill Hart, FLINT's lead developer, about the Solaris error. He replied:
>> It looks to me like _STDC_C99 is not defined by the compiler on this >> platform. Due to a bug in Solaris's headers, this causes it to fail. >> >> You *might* be able to work around it with one of the following fixes: >> >> 1) pass std=gnu99 instead of std=c99 (I do not guarantee flint will >> compile with this flag) >> >> 2) don't pass XPG6 (it's technically correct, but triggers the bug, basically) >> >> 3) pass stdc=c99 (I am unsure if this will work) >> >> If none of those work, I suggest you report the bug to Sun. It is >> certainly not a flint bug.
(I've reproduced this with Bill's permission.) Thoughts?
comment:104 Changed 8 years ago by
Using Google, there are plenty of references to the fact _STDC_C99
should not be defined for C++, only C99. But this is C++ code.
comment:105 Changed 8 years ago by
BTW, in the next week or so I should be able to try this on AIX 5.3 with the IBM C and C++ compilers. That would bypass gcc/g++ and Solaris headers. It would be a completely different build environment. It would be interesting to see what happens there.
Does anyone have a copy of the latest C and C++ standards?
Dave
comment:106 Changed 8 years ago by
 Priority changed from major to blocker
comment:107 Changed 8 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:108 Changed 8 years ago by
 Work issues set to Solaris build error, doctest error
I've changed the status to "needs work", because we still need fixes for the other problems.
comment:109 in reply to: ↑ 101 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to drkirkby:
It would be a lot less confusing if people used gcc to compile C and g++ to compile C++. What next, g++ to compile Fortran?
Note that gcc
is not the C compiler, but a compiler driver (and GCC is the GNU Compiler Collection, renamed years ago).
So it's in general pretty ok to use gcc
to preprocess, assemble or link files, compile C, C++ or even Fortran files with gcc
, but one should pass the appropriate options (and e.g. libraries that are not added by default in that case) depending on the source language.
Of course using gjc
for Java, g++
for C++ and gfortran
for Fortran is less confusing (and perhaps less errorprone).
It would be nice to get rid of the endless warnings like:
cc1plus: warning: command line option "Wstrictprototypes" is valid for Ada/C/ObjC but not for C++
Again ceterum censeo ... (I don't recall how often I complained about that).
Also, (besides libcsage.*
) libstdc++.*
is linked to each and every extension module regardless of the language
.
Note also that the XPG6 / C99 issue is not an upstream (FLINT) problem, since FLINT is C, not C++, but we compile FLINT source code as C++.
In addition, the Solaris headers are patched by GCC's fixincludes
, so I'm not sure who's to blame for the failure. The relevant test should certainly also make a distinction on C++.
comment:110 followup: ↓ 112 Changed 8 years ago by
On the Solaris build error: From SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/module_list.py
:
Extension('sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint', sources = ['sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx', 'sage/libs/flint/fmpq_poly.c'], language = 'c++', extra_compile_args=["std=c99", "D_XPG6"], libraries = ["csage", "flint", "ntl", "gmpxx", "gmp"], include_dirs = [SAGE_ROOT + '/local/include/FLINT/', SAGE_ROOT + '/devel/sage/sage/libs/flint/'], depends = [SAGE_ROOT + "/local/include/FLINT/flint.h"]),
If I understand correctly (and to recap, somewhat):
 The
language
option just tells Cython to create a C++ filepolynomial_rational_flint.cpp
from the Cython filepolynomial_rational_flint.pyx
, so that we can compile the .cpp file with NTL's C++ headers, etc.  The
extra_compile_args
here are really only for compiling the C99 filefmpq_poly.c
. But distutils also uses them (andWstrictprototypes
) to compilepolynomial_rational_flint.cpp
, too. This can give the warningscc1plus: warning: command line option "std=c99" is valid for C/ObjC but not for C++ cc1plus: warning: command line option "Wstrictprototypes" is valid for Ada/C/ObjC but not for C++
 We need
std=c99
to compile the C99 filefmpq_poly.c
. Usingstd=gnu99
instead, gives, e.g.,In file included from /usr/include/time.h:22:0, from /home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1pre4000/local/include/FLINT/zmod_poly.h:35, from /home/mpatel/build/fulvia/sage4.6.alpha1pre4000/local/include/FLINT/fmpz_poly.h:40, from sage/libs/flint/fmpq_poly.h:22, from sage/libs/flint/fmpq_poly.c:15: /usr/include/sys/types.h:536:23: error: duplicate ‘unsigned’
The other extra argument,D_XPG6
is technically correct, as Bill says, but causes problems with gcc on Solaris.
Are there any objections to using
extra_compile_args=["std=c99"] + uname_specific('SunOS', [], ['D_XPG6']),
instead?
comment:111 Changed 8 years ago by
 Merged in sage4.6.alpha1 deleted
comment:112 in reply to: ↑ 110 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to mpatel:
[...] Are there any objections to using
extra_compile_args=["std=c99"] + uname_specific('SunOS', [], ['D_XPG6']),
instead?
I would really appreciate if this got fixed in a proper way, and not with yet another workaround.
I.e., IMHO one should
 drop the
language="c++"
(since it is in fact C code),  clean up  unfortunately lots of  Cython header files (
.pxi
,.pxd
) to not rather randomly include NTL[related] wrappers / headers which trigger the need for C++. Some.pyx
files then have to explicitly include these elsewhere omitted ones (but IIRC onlysage/algebras/quatalg/quaternion_algebra_element.pyx
).  Remove
"ntl"
and"gmpxx"
fromlibraries
.
I've actually given up to complete the second step, since for some reason Cython insists to put both
#include "ntl_wrap.h"
and
#include "FLINT/NTLinterface.h"
into the generated polynomial_rational_flint.c
(for me, line 168 and 170).
If I manually remove these two lines, the extension module gets properly built and apparently works.
If we solve just the XPG6 issue (by getting around the bad Solaris headers), but keep the underlying cause, I'm pretty sure we'll revisit the same problem (needing to compile C code as if it was C++) soon.
Perhaps one should ask the authors why they added language="c++"
; I guess just because they ran into the real problem.
comment:113 Changed 8 years ago by
P.S.: The Wstrictprototypes
is a separate Cython / distutils problem. Perhaps fixed in Cython 0.13 (Robert B. is well aware of this), but I think it isn't yet.
comment:114 Changed 8 years ago by
P.P.S.:
from sage.libs.flint.ntl_interface cimport *
also has to be removed from polynomial_rational_flint.pyx
.
comment:115 in reply to: ↑ 102 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to mpatel:
The failures in
generic_graph.py
stem from the newly merged #9741. I've added a comment there.
#9741 has a doctest that uses vertices that are polynomials. With module name changes here at #4000, one of the doctests needs to change. I've added a bit of documentation (and expanded the test slightly) to make it clear why the fullyqualified name is being used  more discussion is on #9741.
I built this patch after applying everything up through the "hensel_lift" patch, but it should just depend on the renaming of the modules. Tests now pass on sage/graphs/generic_graph.py
and the documentation for this module looks fine.
comment:116 Changed 8 years ago by
Another P.S.:
While ntl_wrap.h
does no harm (it can be included in C programs), FLINT/NTLinterface.h
is quite funny:
... NTLinterface.h: Header file for NTLinterface.cpp Copyright (C) 2007, William Hart *****************************************************************************/ #ifndef FLINT_NTL_INT_H #define FLINT_NTL_INT_H #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { #endif #include <NTL/ZZ.h> #include <NTL/ZZX.h> #include "flint.h" #include "F_mpz.h" #include "fmpz.h" #include "fmpz_poly.h" NTL_CLIENT /* Returns the number of limbs taken up by an NTL ZZ */ unsigned long ZZ_limbs(const ZZ& z); ...
comment:117 Changed 8 years ago by
I've finally managed to build sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint
as a C extension module; have to sort out the changes though (but not today).
This also fixes the Solaris headers issue.
comment:118 followup: ↓ 119 Changed 8 years ago by
Dear Leif,
I just wanted to say thank you for looking at this.
Best wishes, Sebastian
comment:119 in reply to: ↑ 118 Changed 8 years ago by
Replying to spancratz:
Dear Leif, I just wanted to say thank you for looking at this. Best wishes, Sebastian
Indeed, thanks very much for working on a proper solution. It would be nice to get #4000 into 4.6.alpha3 for wider testing. What do you think about using the workaround temporarily and having a separate ticket for doing it right?
comment:120 Changed 8 years ago by
I think this would be the appropriate way to handle this. Sebastian
comment:121 Changed 8 years ago by
Applying trac4000_0.patch to 4.6.alpha2, I get a failed "hunk":

polynomial_ring.py
1220 1220 sage: type(R.gen()) 1221 1221 <class 'sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_element_generic.Polynomial_generic_dense_field'> 1222 1222 """ 1223 if implementation is None: implementation="NTL"1224 1223 from sage.rings.finite_rings.finite_field_base import is_FiniteField 1224 from sage.rings.rational_field import QQ 1225 from sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_singular_interface import can_convert_to_singular 1226 if implementation is None: 1227 implementation = "NTL" 1228 1225 1229 if implementation == "NTL" and is_FiniteField(base_ring): 1226 p=base_ring.characteristic()1227 1230 from sage.libs.ntl.ntl_ZZ_pEContext import ntl_ZZ_pEContext 1228 1231 from sage.libs.ntl.ntl_ZZ_pX import ntl_ZZ_pX 1232 from sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_zz_pex import Polynomial_ZZ_pEX 1233 1234 p = base_ring.characteristic() 1229 1235 self._modulus = ntl_ZZ_pEContext(ntl_ZZ_pX(list(base_ring.polynomial()), p)) 1230 from sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_zz_pex import Polynomial_ZZ_pEX 1231 element_class=Polynomial_ZZ_pEX 1236 element_class = Polynomial_ZZ_pEX 1232 1237 1233 1238 if not element_class: 1234 1239 if sparse: 1235 1240 element_class = polynomial_element_generic.Polynomial_generic_sparse_field 1236 1241 elif isinstance(base_ring, rational_field.RationalField): 1237 element_class = polynomial_element_generic.Polynomial_rational_dense 1242 from sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_rational_flint import Polynomial_rational_flint 1243 element_class = Polynomial_rational_flint 1238 1244 elif is_RealField(base_ring): 1239 1245 element_class = PolynomialRealDense 1240 1246 else: 1241 1247 element_class = polynomial_element_generic.Polynomial_generic_dense_field 1248 1242 1249 PolynomialRing_integral_domain.__init__(self, base_ring, name=name, sparse=sparse, element_class=element_class) 1243 1250 1244 from sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_singular_interface import can_convert_to_singular1245 1251 self._has_singular = can_convert_to_singular(self) 1246 1252 1247 1253 def divided_difference(self, points, full_table=False):
Could someone who knows this code please rebase the patch?
comment:122 Changed 8 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I've attached a rebased patch and a workaround for the Solaris GCC problem. The patches to apply are now:
comment:123 followup: ↓ 125 Changed 8 years ago by
 Work issues Solaris build error, doctest error deleted
The tests pass with a trial 4.6.alpha3 (which is probably the same as alpha2 for this ticket) on sage.math, except for
sage t long force_lib "devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py" ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/apps/sage4.6.a3/devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 194: sage: NumberField(x^2 + 1, 'a').ideal(7).__hash__() Expected: 9223372036854775779 Got: 288230376151711715
On David Kirkby's OpenSolaris machine hawk, I get
sage t long force_lib "devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py" ********************************************************************** File "/export/home/buildbot/build/sage/hawk1/hawk_full/build/sage4.6.alpha3/devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 194: sage: NumberField(x^2 + 1, 'a').ideal(7).__hash__() Expected: 2147483619 Got: 67108835
I'm inclined to merge this into 4.6.alpha3. We can open a new ticket for the new error, unless it indicates a serious problem. I'd like to release 4.6.alpha3 in a day or so, so please let me know as soon as possible.
comment:124 Changed 8 years ago by
I've also attached a combined patch that replaces all of the others.
comment:125 in reply to: ↑ 123 Changed 8 years ago by
 Cc pjeremy added
Replying to mpatel:
The tests pass with a trial 4.6.alpha3 (which is probably the same as alpha2 for this ticket) on sage.math, except for
sage t long force_lib "devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py" ********************************************************************** File "/mnt/usb1/scratch/mpatel/apps/sage4.6.a3/devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 194: sage: NumberField(x^2 + 1, 'a').ideal(7).__hash__() Expected: 9223372036854775779 Got: 288230376151711715On David Kirkby's OpenSolaris machine hawk, I get
sage t long force_lib "devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py" ********************************************************************** File "/export/home/buildbot/build/sage/hawk1/hawk_full/build/sage4.6.alpha3/devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 194: sage: NumberField(x^2 + 1, 'a').ideal(7).__hash__() Expected: 2147483619 Got: 67108835I'm inclined to merge this into 4.6.alpha3. We can open a new ticket for the new error, unless it indicates a serious problem. I'd like to release 4.6.alpha3 in a day or so, so please let me know as soon as possible.
Personally, I think it would be best to fix it first. Otherwise it strikes me of this comment
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6456#comment:67
by Peter Jeremy.
I am very concerned at this "release it now, we'll make it work later" mentality.
If it is on the strict understanding it does not get into a release until fixed, then I'm OK with it. That is the purpose of alphas. But I thought the intension was to have a feature freeze after this alpha. Merging this could be dangerous thing to do.
The ticket has been open two years  I would have thought those working on it would have had time to checked it!
Dave
comment:126 Changed 8 years ago by
As a matter of interest, what is the rationale for making a ticket a blocker, when it has been open for two years? If we have lived without it for two years, I find the 'blocker' status a bit unnecessary.
comment:127 Changed 8 years ago by
On bsd.math, I get
sage t long force_lib devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py ********************************************************************** File "/Users/buildbot/build/sage/bsd1/bsd_full/build/sage4.6.alpha3/devel/sagemain/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 194: sage: NumberField(x^2 + 1, 'a').ideal(7).__hash__() Expected: 9223372036854775779 Got: 288230376151711715
so it seems we can just update the example at line 194 in number_field_ideal.py
, which is currently:
sage: NumberField(x^2 + 1, 'a').ideal(7).__hash__() 9223372036854775779 # 64bit 2147483619 # 32bit
Is is OK?
comment:128 Changed 8 years ago by
For the record, here is a slightly longer quote of what Peter said:
I am very concerned at this "release it now, we'll make it work later" mentality. If Sage is going to be a viable alternative to the M's, it needs to be trustworthy  complaints of "feature X is missing" are easily rectified, claims of "Sage gave me wrong answers" can quickly turn into "you can't trust the output from Sage" and are far more difficult to refute.
comment:129 Changed 8 years ago by
I made this ticket a 4.6 blocker three weeks ago. The most recent doctest error appeared because of a recent change, probably in 4.6.alpha2. Yes, I meant to say that I'd make the new ticket a 4.6 blocker. 4.6.alpha3 is not out yet and we are not yet in feature freeze.
I've added V2 of the combined patch, which adjusts the number_field_ideal.py
example as I suggest above.
This ticket still needs a final review, and if it's positively reviewed by the time #10097 is merged, I'll merge it into 4.6.alpha3.
comment:130 Changed 8 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:131 Changed 8 years ago by
 Reviewers changed from John Cremona, Martin Albrecht, Alex Ghitza, Harald Schilly to John Cremona, Martin Albrecht, Alex Ghitza, Harald Schilly, William Stein, Mitesh Patel
comment:132 Changed 8 years ago by
 Merged in set to sage4.6.alpha3
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:133 Changed 8 years ago by
And there was much rejoicing.
comment:134 followup: ↓ 135 Changed 7 years ago by
For the record:
There's a bug in fmpq_poly_xgcd()
that can lead to severe heap corruption, which in turn can cause almost any kind of failure.
See #11771 for details.
(Unfortunately FLINT 2.2, which includes its own / a newer version of fmpq_poly
, doesn't yet provide xgcd()
for rational polynomials.)
comment:135 in reply to: ↑ 134 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to leif:
There's a bug in
fmpq_poly_xgcd()
that can lead to severe heap corruption, which in turn can cause almost any kind of failure.See #11771 for details.
Patch is up there.
It would be nice if one of the many reviewers here could review my patch there. He/she should IMHO also take a look at the sizes used in other memory (re)allocations / for other variables, in fmpq_poly_xgcd()
at least.
The attached patch provides the basic skeleton for the proposed new implementation. The following already works with the attached patch: