On Nov 30, 10:18 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 1:11 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:50 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > dortmund.de> wrote:
> >> On Nov 29, 5:04 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Hello Robert,
>
> > Hi Robert,
>
> >>> I've been looking into this and I can't seem to find where the issue
> >>> is. The thing I don't understand is that dictobject calls Py_XDECREF
> >>> on line 847, which is a macro that essentially boils down to
> >>> _Py_Dealloc in object.c. Even if this were inlined, it calls op-
> >>>> ob_type->tp_dealloc which should be fast_tp_dealloc (integer.c:
> >>> 3258) if indeed the integer created on at integer.c:19673 is the
> >>> thing being collected.
>
> >>> Also, an integer object is 28 bytes:
>
> >>> {{{
> >>> %cython
> >>> from sage.rings.integer cimport Integer
> >>> print sizeof(Integer)
> >>> ///
> >>> 28
>
> >>> }}}
>
> >>> so I can't figure out why 80 bytes is getting allocated at that
> >>> spot.
> >>> Also strange, in my version of sage, element.c:22299 is the closing
> >>> brace of __pyx_tp_new_4sage_9structure_7element_Element, so the
> >>> traceback for the allocation seems strange as well.
>
> >>> It would be useful if we could figure out what module is being
> >>> collected that is throwing this error.
>
> >> Yep. You once send me a patch for some "magic" integer not to be
> >> deallocated with high garbage collection level with Cython - I am
> >> going to see if applying that patch fixes it.
>
> >>> - Robert
>
> >> This is now #1337. On Linux PPC the above leads to a crash on exit
> >> for
> >> every Sage session started. It didn't used to do that with 2.8.7, but
> >> that really doesn't indicate a whole lot.
>
> > I commented on #1337: Your no-collect-integer.patch prevents the issue
> > from happening by incrementing the ref count on global_integer_dummy.
> > It isn't really a fix, but an appropriate short term solution.
>
> > I plan to apply the patch to 2.8.15, unless you object somehow :)
>
> I'm glad the fix was so simple. I think this is OK permanently, as
> bad things can happen if this integer ever goes away before the
> session dies completely.
>
Arrg, it is back. I spoke too soon - not sure where I screwed up. I
still think the patch should be applied.
> - Robert
Sorry,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
