#13447: Make libsingular multivariate polynomial rings collectable
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----------
       Reporter:  nbruin                                        |         
Owner:  rlm                           
           Type:  defect                                        |        
Status:  needs_info                    
       Priority:  major                                         |     
Milestone:  sage-5.4                      
      Component:  memleak                                       |    
Resolution:                                
       Keywords:                                                |   Work 
issues:  Input from libsingular experts
Report Upstream:  None of the above - read trac for reasoning.  |     
Reviewers:                                
        Authors:                                                |     Merged 
in:                                
   Dependencies:                                                |      
Stopgaps:                                
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----------
Changes (by SimonKing):

  * upstream:  Reported upstream. No feedback yet. => None of the above -
               read trac for reasoning.


Comment:

 Great! I didn't expect that NULL would work here, because, after all,
 c-data of a polynomial is supposed to be deallocated with the help of
 c-data of a polynomial ring `celement_destruct(&self.x,
 get_cparent((<Polynomial_template>self)._parent))` - but if someone has
 already thought of the possibility that the parent is invalid, then doing
 the same with an invalid parent._modulus seems the right thing to do.

 While we are at it, I changed the "Reported Upstream" field, because it
 isn't an upstream bug, after all.

 A bit later today, I will also provide a patch fixing the Hecke module
 dimensions, as in comment:23. Do you want me to ask a number theorists
 whether the fix ("Compute the cusps, which implies that the dimension is
 computed as well") is mathematically correct? Or is it enough for you that
 the same number as before (dimension 6) is obtained?

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13447#comment:32>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.

Reply via email to