#13447: Make libsingular multivariate polynomial rings collectable
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: nbruin | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: memleak | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Nils Bruin, Simon | Reviewers: Simon King
King | Work issues: Understand why
Report Upstream: None of the above | sometimes `new_RingWrap` needs an
- read trac for reasoning. | incref and sometimes not
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: #11521 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by SimonKing):
Should we have a look how much of the issues tracked here are now fixed by
#18905?
I still think we should switch to use Singular's c-slot for refcounting.
What we currently do: Create a python object from a libsingular `ring*`
and put it into a Python dictionary, where the number of references is
stored. Wouldn't it be a lot faster to store the number of references in a
c-slot?
If we use it, then I still think it makes sense to adopt Singular's
convention on that c-slot: It counts the number of references minus one.
My suggestion: For testing, I create a branch based on #18905 that uses
both ways of refcounting in parallel, asserting consistency. If that
passes doctests, then we can safely remove the old slow refcounting
system.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13447#comment:110>
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.
