#13970: Fix memory allocation in distances all pairs
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Reporter: dcoudert | Owner: jason, ncohen, rlm
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.7
Component: graph theory | Resolution:
Keywords: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Nathann Cohen
Authors: David Coudert | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Comment (by dcoudert):
Nathann,
> - `sizeof(unsigned anything)` *is* equal to `sizeof(anything)`
Sure, but it is better to be consistent: easier to read.
> - `for i in range(n):` is totally equivalent to `for 0<= i<n`
(http://www.steinertriples.fr/ncohen/a.png)
OK, I can change that
> - was there a problem with the variable `s` that you remove, even when
it is defined as an `uint64_t` ? In the worst situation, `s` could be
equal to something around `n^3`, so as `n` is at most `2^16`, this should
be sufficient.
This is sufficient. I have just been lazy. I will include the type.
> By the way, what do you mean by "the function fails". Does it raise an
exception, or is the result that it returns wrong ?
With 65534 nodes, the {{{init_short_digraph}}} method takes a few seconds.
With 65535 nodes, I had to kill the process (after > 1 hour). I don't know
yet whats going on. I have to investigate further with some print
statements...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13970#comment:8>
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.
