That sure seems like it. So what should we do about the ticket? Would there be opposition to merging this piece of code, as there doesn't seem like there is a fix coming for the likely underlying cypari bug anytime soon?
Best, Travis On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 4:14:31 PM UTC+9 vdelecroix wrote: > Probably related to https://github.com/sagemath/cypari2/issues/107 ? > > Le 15/05/2022 à 05:06, 'Travis Scrimshaw' via sage-devel a écrit : > > Hi everyone, > > On ticket #30423 <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30423>, Dan, Willie, > > and I have been working on a parallel-computation based implementation > for > > computing F-matrices that are used in math physics. However, we have been > > seeing some doctest failures sporadically that involve segfaults and > > linked-list corruption from (cy)PARI. Here are the logs from testing with > > the first and the last having full tracebacks. > > > > http://sporadic.stanford.edu/badlog-match > > http://sporadic.stanford.edu/badlog > > http://sporadic.stanford.edu/badlog1 > > http://sporadic.stanford.edu/badlog2 > > http://sporadic.stanford.edu/badlog3 > > > > The first question would be if anyone has an idea about what is causing > > this. I have this impression that PARI is thread-safe, but I am wondering > > if cypari is also thread/parallel-safe or if there are any specific > things > > that we should be careful about. (We’ve already had to work around a > > pickling issue with polynomials IIRC.) > > > > Second question is that because this is a Heisenbug and I suspect it is > > something upstream (and so far, nobody has been able to reproducing it > > during an interactive version of Sage), I was wondering what the policy > > would be for merging the ticket. I recall in the past that we have merged > > tickets with Heisenbugs with followup tickets noting the behavior, but I > am > > not 100% sure about that (and I wouldn’t necessarily know how to find any > > explicit examples). I was wondering if we could merge the ticket in an > > early beta version so that many people/systems can test it to see if it > > becomes more reproducible; of course this is assuming that the build bots > > are not consistent in reproducing this. Should we just mark any offending > > test(s) as “# known bug” and is there some general policy about this? > > > > Thanks, > > Travis > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/23dca745-b13f-47b6-9662-dc75f6109784n%40googlegroups.com.
