If you want I could make the numpy update again. Since most necessary patches of the Bugs we found in #9808 should be merged in 1.5.1 this should be rather easy.
regards, Stefan On Jan 27, 2:45 pm, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 27, 5:30 am, François Bissey <francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > so it's that time again where I look at how "easy" it would be to update > > various pieces of sage to the latest upstream. The tests were performed > > on a linux machine running in 64 bit (amd64) based on 4.6.2.alpha2. > > > Harmless and easy to correct. > > > ecl-11.1.1/maxima-5.23.2 > > Lots of numerical noise and a bit of formatting. Mostly due to ecl as > > downgrading maxima to 5.22.1 but keeping ecl-11.1.1 doesn't change the > > results > > of the tests. 6 files are affected in total. > > If you open tickets for these, cc: me and I might be able to use that > PPC 10.4 machine to help test again. Note that > athttp://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2011/023868.htmlwe have > the following, which I never saw Juanjo respond to directly. It'd be > helpful to see what's up with this currently before upgrading. > > On 1/20/11 11:14 AM, Oliver Kullmann wrote:> Hello, > > > Maxima 5.21.1 as well as 5.23.2, built with Ecl 11.1.1, > > has a completely corrupted next_prime function, e.g. > > next_prime(113) = 121 = 11^2 > > (determining all "primes" within {1,...,1000} yields 231 > > "primes", while there are 168). > > > Don't know whether this is an Ecl or a Maxima (or a joint) problem. > > Would be good to find out. > > Now that everyone has verified that other lisps don't show this, how > about fixing it? > > A peek at next-prime-det in src/ifactor.lisp has this bit of code: > > (loop while 1 do > (dolist (p *small-primes*) > (if (= (mmod n p) 0) (return)) > (if (>= (* p p) n) (return-from next-prime-det n))) > (incf n (nth (mmod n 210) deltaprimes))) > > For whatever reason, ecl doesn't execute the loop. It should because > "1" is equivalent to true. When I change the 1 to T, ecl returns 127 > as > the next prime. > > Of course, since this is an infinite loop, we could just get rid of > the > "while 1 do" part and just use plain loop. > > Sounds like a bug in ecl to me. > > Ray -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
