On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:41:31 William Stein wrote: > If you link against mpir then the above discrepancy would go away. > However, i can also tell you that the above discrepancy is harmless. > The issue is simply that both answers are right. e.g., the line > > sage: x = crt(2, 1, 3, 5); x > > uses the Chinese Remainder Theorem to find an integer x such that x % > 3 == 2 and x%5 == 1. Both -4 and 11 are correct choices of x. > The other related tests involving "modular symbols" are different > because of the same function. > > > I guess a finer point to know is. is this result correct but not reduce > > to same domain? And does it have nasty consequences later - ie do > > other thing rely on the result to be in this domain? > > No, there is definitely no nasty consequence. > > > One more question, if we need to link against mpir's libgmp, does linking > > sage itself against it enough, or do we need to also link pari, mpfr, > > mpfi and other against it as well? mpfr in itself would be a problem as > > it is part of the toolchain (gcc is compiled against it). > > I think linking sage itself is likely to be enough for doctests to > pass, though it is hard to be sure. It would be nice to link pari > too. > I just had a thought. why is sage still linked to libgmp rather than libmpir? There is nothing in libgmp that isn't in libmpir - or am I mistaken?
Francois -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
