Some things to take into account: Mike is certainly very busy now. (In the last half hour I have been receiving alternate emails from him, and from sage-devel about lcalc!). He is (co-)running the current semester at MSRI on Arithmetic Statistics (other organisers including me, and William). He has a newborn baby keeping him awake at night. And he is working hard at getting the large (and well-funded) L-functions database project ready for release later this year, one of the important activities currently happening at MSRI.
A lot of work on Sage and attendance at Sage Days has been funded by Mike's FRG L-functions grant (for which William is a co-investigator). Just this week Rishi was demonstrating (at MSRI) his recent work on improving the Sage interface to both lcalc and Dokchitser's L-function code. These issues about precision came up then. I don't think the expression "upstream author" quite captures the relationship here. And I agree with everything Karl-Dieter said too. John On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 03/31/11 05:22 PM, Volker Braun wrote: > >> As Dave Kirby remarked, >> right now it compiles on a couple of gcc releases and essentially no other >> compiler. And thats hardly a surprise if you look at the code. At the very >> least the endless compiler warnings need to be looked at / fixed. > > > Micheal did a while back say: > > "The antiquated header files and unused variables have been removed in > L-1.3, > which has not yet been released to the public. It should be released in the > next couple of weeks" > > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support/browse_thread/thread/fab46afe7a8ac1c2/a3fe854a9fb88ed6?lnk=gst&q=lcalc+1.3#a3fe854a9fb88ed6 > > I don't know if he has had time to address that. Are we using an old > version? Perhaps he has released 1.3. I can't find it I must admit, but > nearly all lcalc references on Google seem to be related to Sage. > > One thing that might help him improve the code is to run it though the Sun > Studio compiler, which can be downloaded and installed on Linux, either as > an rpm or a tar file which does not need root access to install. > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/solarisstudio/downloads/index.html > > That is more strict that gcc, and would pick up some of these problems. > Perhaps he is not aware of that. > > Could someone install that on sage.math? If code will compile that Sun > Studio, and compile with gcc version n, we can be pretty sure it will > compile with gcc n+1. Clearly we are finding code which is breaking as gcc > gets stricter, whereas the Sun compiler would never have accepted it in the > first place. > > Singular, PolyBoRi and lcalc are three packages which have become broken > when updating from gcc 4.5.x to 4.6.0 > > I recently played with a static analysis tool, cppcheck: > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/cppcheck/index.php?title=Main_Page > > which is might be of use too, though I was not over-impressed. I tried it on > some of my own code, but whilst it found some issues, all were non-issues. > It did not find any problems at all with lcalc. It also generates a seg > fault after it has finished running > > Checking ./Lglobals.cc: USE_MPFR... > 10/15 files checked 66% done > Checking ./Lmisc.cc... > 11/15 files checked 73% done > Checking ./Lriemannsiegel.cc... > 12/15 files checked 80% done > Checking ./Lriemannsiegel_blfi.cc... > 13/15 files checked 86% done > Checking ./cmdline.c... > Checking ./cmdline.c: HAVE_CONFIG_H... > 14/15 files checked 93% done > Checking ./example_programs/example.cc... > 15/15 files checked 100% done > Segmentation Fault (core dumped) > > which is not a good advert for a piece of code designed to check code!! > > There are some similar commercial tools. > > But really cleaning up the compiler warnings and getting standard C or C++ > would be the first step. Static code analysis tools could come later, when > the code is cleaner. > > -- > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > Dave > > -- > 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 > -- 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
