Opened 11 years ago
Closed 2 years ago
#8904 closed defect (invalid)
libsingular: memory leak in Matrix.act_on_polynomial
Reported by: | SimonKing | Owned by: | tbd |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | memleak | Keywords: | libsingular act_on_polynomial memleak |
Cc: | malb | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | Frédéric Chapoton, Simon King | |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description
There is a memory leak that occurs when mapping a multivariate polynomial using a matrix:
sage: R.<a,b> = QQ[] sage: M = Matrix([[0,1],[1,0]]) sage: n = 0 sage: p = R.random_element() sage: q = M.act_on_polynomial(p) sage: mem = get_memory_usage() sage: while(1): ....: n+=1 ....: q = M.act_on_polynomial(p) ....: if get_memory_usage()>mem: ....: mem = get_memory_usage() ....: print mem,n ....: 801.04296875 2 801.54296875 2011 802.04296875 4738 802.54296875 7406 803.04296875 10091 803.54296875 12809 804.04296875 15495 804.54296875 18171 805.04296875 20873 805.54296875 23561 806.04296875 26251 ...
This does not occur if one maps the polynomial by a proper morphism:
sage: f = R.hom([M.act_on_polynomial(t) for t in R.gens()],R) sage: while(1): ....: n+=1 ....: q = f(p) ....: if get_memory_usage()>mem: ....: mem = get_memory_usage() ....: print mem,n ....:
Change History (7)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.11 to sage-5.12
comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.1 to sage-6.2
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.2 to sage-6.3
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.3 to sage-6.4
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 3 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.4 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 3 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Frédéric Chapoton, Simon King
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Replying to chapoton:
no longer an issue in 8.3.beta2
I can confirm. So, positive review with both of us as reviewers, I guess.
comment:7 Changed 2 years ago by
- Resolution set to invalid
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Presuming these are all correctly reviewed as either duplicate, invalid, or wontfix.
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
no longer an issue in 8.3.beta2