Hi,
I'm actually really excited that you've got as far. Do you have an ebuild
that I can try?
Cheers,
Soroosh
On Jan 8, 2008 1:40 PM, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 8, 11:55 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> dortmund.de> wrote:
> > On Jan 8, 10:00 am, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> >
> > Hi Francois,
> >
> >
> >
> > > In my efforts to get sage in Gentoo I came on something that looks
> > > like a problem in gmp 4.2.2.
> > > On Gentoo gmp 4.2.2 is marked stable and is part of the system (needed
> > > by gcc). On the ground
> > > that the only patch relevant to me was the new fast gcd code and that
> > > it was a performance patch
> > > and not a correctness one, I decided to use my system gmp (along with
> > > bzip2, readline, mpfr,gd,
> > > pari [mistake since the Galois data are not included in Gentoo],
> > > gnutls, atlas [oh yes not another
> > > 5 hours of tunning, please] and maxima - I passed on python for now).
> >
> > > Having a successful build after rather minimal adjustment I decided to
> > > test it
> > > (sage -testall) and compare the results with a regular build. Numerous
> > > failures at
> > > various point. First tut.tex:
> > > sage -t tut.tex
> > > ***************************************************************
> > > *******
> > > File "tut.py", line 1126:
> > > : x = crt(2, 1, 3, 5); x
> > > Expected:
> > > 11
> > > Got:
> > > -4
> > > **********************************************************************
> > > File "tut.py", line 2250:
> > > : M.T(11).charpoly('x').factor()
> > > Expected:
> > > (x - 285311670612) * (x - 534612)^2
> > > Got:
> > > x^3 - 732255212432452092*x^2 + 732255211931384496*x -
> > > 3145012477679296873951599424
> > > **********************************************************************
> > > 2 items had failures:
> > > 1 of 8 in __main__.example_48
> > > 1 of 8 in __main__.example_96
> > > ***Test Failed*** 2 failures.
> > > For whitespace errors, see the file .doctest_tut.tex
> > > [60.2 s]
> > > exit code: 256
> >
> > > and then a few more. For the first failed test putting back gmp/mpfr
> > > in the build
> > > solved the problem for the second putting back pari worked [of course
> > > system
> > > pari was built against system gmp so it probably propagated from
> > > there]. That
> > > solved almost all the failed test I had (the test didn't finish got
> > > stuck in calc.py
> > > if memory serves me correctly).
> >
> > The system's Maxima ought to be at fault here.
> >
> > > I checked that gmp was built properly with the "make check" provided
> > > in gmp,
> > > so it doesn't look like a miscompilation.
> >
> > You may have hithttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1482since
> > the system gmp didn't have the improved gcd code patched in. The
> > default behavior is not to pass the parameter "minimal", so the issues
> > you see won't be fixed if you use a non-patched gmp. For many people
> > patching the gmp with a GPLed patch making the derived work GPL only
> > will be a problem since many distributions ship code that depends on
> > GPL being LGPL.
> >
> > > I guess it should be investigated before this version of gmp makes it
> > > into sage
> >
> > I am confident it will be resolved. The changes gmp 4.2.1->4.2.2 were
> > largely config fixes and fixes for exotic platforms, so I don't expect
> > any problems once we remerge our patch set.
> >
> I didn't know about that "minimal" parameter - I made the assumption
> that
> the interfacing wouldn't be changed for a minor version, I can
> understand
> as John Cremona that in fact the test I show is correct. I am more
> shocked
> at the behavior of pari I don't know if it is to be expected with an
> unpatched
> gmp. I may try to patch my system gmp and see what happens with that.
>
> I am sure that system maxima is at fault. I just like to know where it
> originates
> from. mpfr? (I realised recently fentoo use 2.3.0.p3 not p4 - it is in
> portage but in
> unstable probably no one care enough to stabilize it fast) lisp? The
> default
> lisp for maxima here is the "Steel Bank Common Lisp" and is not
> callable
> from sage, I got hit by http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1002
> (or http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54738 ), gcl fails I had to
> use
> CMU common lisp. Something else?
>
> Did you open http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1721
> because of my remark on atlas? It has to come with a warning to set
> SAGE_FORTRAN as well.
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
