I tested sage 8.0 and it works fine. On Friday, 9 February 2018 14:44:23 UTC+1, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:03:11 AM UTC, Marco Caliari wrote: >> >> Hi, the following script >> >> def test(m,c,precision): >> M = 3*m >> RRR = RealField(prec = precision) >> coef02 = [RRR(1/i) for i in [1..M+1]] >> g = coef02[M] >> for i in [M-1..2,step=-1]: >> g = x*g+coef02[i] >> ME = 32 >> disk = [exp (2*pi.n(precision)*I*i/ME) for i in range(ME)] >> epsilon1 = max([abs(g(x=z)) for z in disk]) >> return >> m = 40 >> for c in [1/2..10,step=1/2]: >> for ell in [1..10]: >> test(m,c,165) >> >> Indeed, comparing the objects on the heap that weren't there before the > loop I find: > > [(<type 'builtin_function_or_method'>, 1), > (<type 'sage.rings.rational.Rational'>, 1), > (<type 'instancemethod'>, 1), > (<type 'set'>, 1), > (<type 'dict'>, 1), > (<type 'tuple'>, 3), > (<type 'list'>, 3), > (<type 'frame'>, 3), > (<type 'weakref'>, 28), > (<type 'sage.rings.real_mpfi.RealIntervalFieldElement'>, 6200), > (<type 'sage.rings.real_mpfr.RealNumber'>, 29999), > (<type 'sage.rings.complex_number.ComplexNumber'>, 1457000)] > > The real numbers mostly seem to be approximations to pi. Using > objgraph.show_backrefs I'm not getting anything useful. We're definitely > leaking but I wasn't able to identify a cache that's keeping references. Is > that any change that we're doing something wrong with an INCREF/DECREF ? >
-- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.