#17254: Upgrade to Singular-4-0-1
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jdemeyer | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: packages: | Resolution:
standard | Merged in:
Keywords: | Reviewers:
Authors: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 3a512cd7e08e21a4a4e66bfe9179290601717ba0
u/jakobkroeker/ticket.17254.squashed| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by john_perry):
Replying to [comment:34 john_perry]:
> I just applied this to 6.4.1 and encountered the message,
>
> fatal error: Singular/libsingular.h: No such file or directory
>
> while compiling
>
>
build/cythonized/sage/algebras/letterplace/free_algebra_element_letterplace.cpp
>
> Any ideas what causes this?
It's now certain that this, too, was caused by the failure to install
`Singular` because `singular` exists in the directory (what can I say,
it's a Mac). Removing that link and reinstalling the spkg fixed all these
problems.
'''Meanwhile''', I discovered some memory-related bugs in the patch. For
instance, ring.pyx has the line
{{{
assert( exponent == base_ring.degree() )
}}}
which causes a failure. I'm not sure why those should be equal (the test I
used had `Zmod(2^3)` where `exponent==3` and `base_ring.degree()==1`), but
commenting it out leads to a failure on these lines:
{{{
_param.GFChar = ch;
_param.GFDegree = base_ring.degree();
_param.GFPar_name = omStrDup(base_ring.gen());
}}}
because `_param` has not been initialized. Adding
{{{
_param = <GFInfo *>omAlloc(sizeof(GFInfo));
}}}
'''before''' the access gives me a ring. However,
1. I'm not sure whether `omAlloc` or one of the other `omAlloc*`
commands is more appropriate (e.g., `omAlloc0`). Anyone know?
1. I suppose this has to be freed somewhere... I know there's an
obvious-sounding place, so I'll find it.
There are other places this change has to occur. One more question:
* A few lines before the ones I cited above is the test for 64-bits.
I've switched to jdemeyer's test (`sizeof(long)>4`). However, the code in
the patch is exactly the same for both 32- and 64-bit. Is there a
recommendation for what to do here? I'm not sufficiently familiar with
this to know what to do.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17254#comment:56>
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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
