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 ?
>

##
Advertising

--
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.