Opened 6 years ago
Closed 5 years ago
#18920 closed defect (fixed)
upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.39
Reported by:  dimpase  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage7.6 
Component:  symbolics  Keywords:  
Cc:  rws, jpflori, kcrisman, nbruin, jdemeyer, vbraun, charpent  Merged in:  
Authors:  Dima Pasechnik  Reviewers:  Travis Scrimshaw, Emmanuel Charpentier, François Bissey, Jeroen Demeyer, Nils Bruin 
Report Upstream:  Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.  Work issues:  
Branch:  a6c51e6 (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  a6c51e6d71ceec22b0f08c28f9a1c29078fe5b14 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
Attachments (1)
Change History (158)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
 Cc rws added
 Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by
I tried maxima 5.36.0 and reverted (that was with ecl 15.3.7) , not tried 5.36.1 (5.36.0.1 whatever the version number is actually).
Wed Apr 29 11:14:49 2015 >>> scimathematics/maxima5.35.1r2 merge time: 5 minutes and 6 seconds. Fri May 1 10:33:58 2015 >>> scimathematics/maxima5.36.0 merge time: 4 minutes and 52 seconds. Fri May 1 10:42:03 2015 >>> scimathematics/maxima5.35.1r2 merge time: 5 minutes and 8 seconds.
comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
 Branch set to u/dimpase/eclupdate
 Cc jpflori added
 Commit set to 045d21eeb356b04102696d1aa51776b1330c635a
 Description modified (diff)
The branch is currently not working; to build the new ecl pkg, one has to move patches/implib.patch
out of the way; I tried porting the latter patch to the new ecl, but it produces a makefile error that I don't understand; anyway, it is cygwinspecific.
I cc its author now. J.P., any ideas?
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by
for the record, I get
... config.status: creating ecl/config.h Configuration complete. To build ECL, issue make in this directory. cd build; make j1 make[1]: Entering directory `/home/dima/software/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl15.3.7.p0/src/build' Makefile:192: *** commands commence before first target. Stop. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/dima/software/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl15.3.7.p0/src/build' make: *** [all] Error 2 Error  Failed to build ECL ... exiting
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by
What I don't understand is whether some patches are in fact results of running autoconf/automake/aclocal on patched configure.ac, Makefile.in, etc.
If yes, then these should be split from the "real" ones to allow for fully automatic creation (and commands needed to run autotools need to be spelled out somewhere in the pkg docs). If no, then I don't see the point of patching configure.ac, Makefile.in, etc in the first place.
comment:9 followup: ↓ 13 Changed 6 years ago by
Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.
Getting real autoconf patch and running autotools wouldn't be a bad idea but that means you will need to have autotools installed to run spkgsrc. spkgsrc will need to be amended accordingly.
comment:10 followup: ↓ 11 Changed 6 years ago by
I notice that the gmp patch is against configure.ac
while implib is against configure.in
the last one is probably wrong.
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I notice that the gmp patch is against
configure.ac
while implib is againstconfigure.in
the last one is probably wrong.
the name has changed in version 15.3.7.
comment:12 followup: ↓ 14 Changed 6 years ago by
I am trying to read the stuff from the git commit and of course it is patch of patch, it is not readable as this, you changed it already I see.
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; followups: ↓ 15 ↓ 28 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.
Getting real autoconf patch and running autotools wouldn't be a bad idea but that means you will need to have autotools installed to run spkgsrc. spkgsrc will need to be amended accordingly.
spkgsrc is outdated anyway.
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I am trying to read the stuff from the git commit and of course it is patch of patch, it is not readable as this, you changed it already I see.
here they are in a more readable way: https://github.com/dimpase/ecl/commits/sagepatches
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to fbissey:
Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.
No, I mean that it is silly and errorprone to rebase by hand patches that are better obtained directly from diffs to output of autoconf/automake/aclocal.
The latter should not be bundled together with the "real" one.
comment:16 Changed 6 years ago by
I have opened https://gitlab.com/embeddablecommonlisp/ecl/issues/93
to hopefully sort out the ECL autotools mess.
comment:17 Changed 6 years ago by
Sorry I have been too busy today to look further into this. I can reproduce your problem with your branch on my mac. I haven't quite identified yet the guilty makefile. I think the problem is not in the top makefile but in one of the subfolders but I haven't identified which one yet.
comment:18 Changed 6 years ago by
To complete the answer you got from upstream: automake is not used (not a crime) but ecl also ship some of its dependencies in the pristine tarball and those come with their own build systems which can use automake. Apart from ffi
we don't want to care about these I think.
comment:19 Changed 6 years ago by
arrghh, that was me mixing of tabs and spaces in src/Makefile.in
patch...
Now all seems to work. I'll post an update soon.
OK, and for the record, src/configure
is generated by autoreconf, that is, one does not need to rebase the corresponding patch manually.
comment:20 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from 045d21eeb356b04102696d1aa51776b1330c635a to 9fc27ca7ba877a83443c61d22542e49d65096404
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
9fc27ca  fixed broken Makefile.in patch (spaces and tabs don't mix), reorganised patches.

comment:21 Changed 6 years ago by
 Cc kcrisman added
comment:22 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from 9fc27ca7ba877a83443c61d22542e49d65096404 to 82fdf0eaa092b63cc98d97b418721795ea6b5081
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
82fdf0e  ported maxima patches; tarball needs bootstrapping; trivial doctests fix

comment:23 followup: ↓ 24 Changed 6 years ago by
 Cc nbruin added
New Maxima output sometimes breaks Sage parser, e.g.
sage t src/sage/calculus/calculus.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 373, in sage.calculus.calculus Failed example: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 496, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 858, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.calculus.calculus[100]>", line 1, in <module> taylor(gamma(Integer(1)/Integer(3)+x),x,Integer(0),Integer(3)) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/functional.py", line 378, in taylor return f.taylor(*args) File "sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 4038, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.taylor (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/expression.cpp:23671) return self.parent()(l) File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 1097, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/parent.c:9546) return mor._call_(x) File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 237, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.NamedConvertMap._call_ (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:5756) cdef Element e = method(C) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1251, in _symbolic_ return R(self._sage_()) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1226, in _sage_ maxima=self.parent()) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1901, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '(1/432)*(72*gamma(1/3)*(psi[2])(1/3)+((72)*euler_gamma^3+((36)*pi*3^(1/2)+(324)*log(3))*euler_gamma^2+((108)*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+(18)*pi^2+(486)*log(3)^2+(216)*(psi[1])(1/3))*euler_gamma+((1)*pi^3+((81)*log(3)^2+(36)*(psi[1])(1/3))*pi)*3^(1/2)+(27)*log(3)*pi^2+(243)*log(3)^3+(324)*(psi[1])(1/3)*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^3+(1/24)*((12*euler_gamma^2+(4*pi*3^(1/2)+36*log(3))*euler_gamma+6*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+pi^2+27*log(3)^2+12*(psi[1])(1/3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^2+((1)/6)*((6*euler_gamma+pi*3^(1/2)+9*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x+gamma(1/3)' in Sage
and
File "src/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1746, in sage.calculus.calculus.symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string Failed example: maxima('3*li[2](u)+8*li[33](exp(u))').sage() Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 496, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 858, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.calculus.calculus.symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string[6]>", line 1, in <module> maxima('3*li[2](u)+8*li[33](exp(u))').sage() File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/interface.py", line 1016, in sage return self._sage_(*args, **kwds) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1226, in _sage_ maxima=self.parent()) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1901, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '8*(li[33])(e^u)+3*(li[2])(u)' in Sage
Is it easy to fix?
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 ; followup: ↓ 34 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '(1/432)*(72*gamma(1/3)*(psi[2])(1/3)+((72)*euler_gamma^3+((36)*pi*3^(1/2)+(324)*log(3))*euler_gamma^2+((108)*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+(18)*pi^2+(486)*log(3)^2+(216)*(psi[1])(1/3))*euler_gamma+((1)*pi^3+((81)*log(3)^2+(36)*(psi[1])(1/3))*pi)*3^(1/2)+(27)*log(3)*pi^2+(243)*log(3)^3+(324)*(psi[1])(1/3)*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^3+(1/24)*((12*euler_gamma^2+(4*pi*3^(1/2)+36*log(3))*euler_gamma+6*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+pi^2+27*log(3)^2+12*(psi[1])(1/3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^2+((1)/6)*((6*euler_gamma+pi*3^(1/2)+9*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x+gamma(1/3)' in Sageand
TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '8*(li[33])(e^u)+3*(li[2])(u)' in Sage
No, it is not very easy to fix. We rewrite li[n](
to polylog(n,
and the same for psi[n](
to psi(n,
. This string matching obviously completely breaks if maxima starts spelling this as (li[n])(x)
. Quite frankly, that's an insane spelling, so perhaps the preferred approach is to clarify with the maxima folks if they really intend this. It might be an unforeseen byproduct of some other change that they prefer to fix themselves, in which case we shouldn't waste time.
If they insist this is a reasonable spelling, I think we can work around it, but it'll be a bit of real work. Note that we can handle calls to parenthesized functions:
sage: from sage.calculus.calculus import symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string as sefms sage: sefms('(sin)(x)') sin(x)
so as long as we ensure that expressions like li[n]
and psi[n]
themselves get parsed to callable functions, we should be OK. Something like this would be OK:
sage: sefms('li[n]') curried_polylog(n) sage: sefms('li[n]')(x) polylog(n,x) sage: sefms('(li[n])(x)') polylog(n,x)
Since we cannot really handle square brackets, we'd need to do the li[n]
>curried_polylog(n)
via a string substitution, but that should be OK. The curried_polylog(n)
would just create a symbolic function that, when called with a single argument, would create the appropriate polylog.
The binary conversion sr_to_max
in maxima_lib.py
shouldn't be affected, unless they have changed their internal representation of polylogarithms.
comment:25 Changed 6 years ago by
I opened https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2998/ to ask about these extra ()...
comment:26 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from 82fdf0eaa092b63cc98d97b418721795ea6b5081 to 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
0d0649a  some easy doctest fixes

comment:27 followup: ↓ 29 Changed 6 years ago by
This is bad:

build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall
diff git a/build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall b/build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall index 3c80e5c..b08d0d7 100755
a b done 47 47 echo 48 48 echo "Now configuring Maxima..." 49 ./bootstrap 49 50 ./configure prefix="$SAGE_LOCAL" libdir="$SAGE_LOCAL/lib" enableecl git_found=false 50 51 check_error "Failed to configure Maxima."
Bootstrapping should ideally be done by upstream. Alternatively, it should be done in spkgsrc
, but certainly not in spkginstall
. Autotools are not a Sage prerequisite.
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 13 ; followup: ↓ 30 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 27 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
This is bad:
build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall
diff git a/build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall b/build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall index 3c80e5c..b08d0d7 100755
a b done 47 47 echo 48 48 echo "Now configuring Maxima..." 49 ./bootstrap 49 50 ./configure prefix="$SAGE_LOCAL" libdir="$SAGE_LOCAL/lib" enableecl git_found=false 50 51 check_error "Failed to configure Maxima." Bootstrapping should ideally be done by upstream. Alternatively, it should be done in
spkgsrc
, but certainly not inspkginstall
. Autotools are not a Sage prerequisite.
I am acutely aware of this; upstream is not doing bootstrapping in the release in question. Also, note that the ticket status is "new". I'll sort this out after the bigger issues are fixed.
comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 28 Changed 6 years ago by
comment:31 Changed 6 years ago by
with sf.net back online, one finds there version 5.36.1. Not sure yet how much different it is from 5.36.0.1, which is not official...
5.36.1 has the same issue with too many ()...
comment:32 Changed 6 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/dimpase/eclupdate to u/dimpase/updateecl
 Commit changed from 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad to b669a434bdf2f91d21254ccf186bc86396dd4909
comment:33 Changed 6 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/dimpase/updateecl to u/dimpase/eclupdate
 Commit changed from b669a434bdf2f91d21254ccf186bc86396dd4909 to 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad
 Dependencies set to #18961
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from upgrade Maxima and ECL to 5.36.0.1 and 15.3.7, respectively to upgrade Maxima to 5.36.1
I've split the update of ECL to a separate ticket #18961, as it is ready.
comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 24 ; followup: ↓ 35 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nbruin:
Replying to dimpase:
The binary conversion
sr_to_max
inmaxima_lib.py
shouldn't be affected, unless they have changed their internal representation of polylogarithms.
They say the change is a byproduct to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to maxima_lib.py
and do not try to deal with this in some other way?
comment:35 in reply to: ↑ 34 ; followup: ↓ 36 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
They say the change is a byproduct to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to
maxima_lib.py
and do not try to deal with this in some other way?
Robert isn't making any statement there about priority. I would not think it's a very low priority, because the current behaviour is tantamount to writing (sin)(x)
, which is silly. I would not be surprised if in the next couple of weeks, when he has had a chance to think about a solution, he will have a fix. I'm sure it's not hard to fix. It just needs some thought to fix it properly and efficiently.
In terms of total amount of work, I would think introducing "curried" poylog and psi will be less work than eliminating any dependence on string parsing from maxima.
For calculus use, we're already moved entirely to maxima_lib. The library instance just allows two interfaces back and forth: a stringsbased one and the binary sr_to_max
and max_to_sr
one.
Moving calculus entirely to sr_to_max
is a nice idea in general, and that's a worthwhile project that should be quite doable (we're halfway there already and it didn't take much work to do that).
It would mean identifying all remaining places where calculus triggers string conversions and replace those sites with mechanisms comparable to sr_integral, sr_limit, sr_sum etc.
I think it's worthwhile if somehow we do maintain the pexpect interface to maxima as well, even if we don't need it for the calculus functionality in sage proper (and since the stringsbased interface in maxima_lib shares nearly all its code with that, we might as well keep that too). Having the pexpect interfaces in sage is a useful feature for communicating with other computer algebra systems.
comment:36 in reply to: ↑ 35 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to nbruin:
Replying to dimpase:
They say the change is a byproduct to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to
maxima_lib.py
and do not try to deal with this in some other way?Robert isn't making any statement there about priority. I would not think it's a very low priority, because the current behaviour is tantamount to writing
(sin)(x)
, which is silly. I would not be surprised if in the next couple of weeks, when he has had a chance to think about a solution, he will have a fix. I'm sure it's not hard to fix. It just needs some thought to fix it properly and efficiently.
he replied, saying that he does not see a way to fix this, and that Sage has to put up with this for the time being.
I'd rather see this fixed im maxima, of course, but this is probably a nontrivial job for a Lisp hacker we don't have...
comment:37 Changed 6 years ago by
Quick workaround:
ecl_eval("(defprop $LI 210 rbp)") ecl_eval("(defprop $PSI 210 rbp)")
it certainly avoids the extra parentheses around li
and psi
invocations. I've reported this workaround on the maxima bugtracker too. Hopefully Robert will comment there about any possible adverse effects. Including these statements in the maxima_calculus initialization in maxima_lib.py
might do the trick (and possibly the change is accepted upstream!)
EDIT: A better and more universal change is probably:
ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 190 lbp)")
This way it applies to all "MQAPPLY" calls. That could be problematic, of course, but it doesn't seem to be, probably because 190 is still high enough. Things go wrong if you go too low:
sage: maxima_calculus("(a+b)(t)") (b+a)(t) sage: ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 1 lbp)") <ECL: 1> sage: maxima_calculus("(a+b)(t)") b+a(t)
comment:38 Changed 6 years ago by
Of course, the expression type that gets constructed for li
and psi
is more general:
sage: maxima_calculus("a[1](x)") a[1](x) sage: maxima_calculus("a[1](x)").ecl() <ECL: ((MQAPPLY SIMP) (($A SIMP ARRAY) 1) $X)>
but we already fail with that (because we carefully only convert li[
and psi[
):
sage: SR(maxima_calculus("a[1](x)")) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'a[1](x)' in Sage
Since square brackets are really part of Maxima's expression syntax, the proper solution would be to have a parser that can handle them. The following seems valid maxima:
sage: maxima_calculus("(sin(x)+cos(y))[tan(u)[3/(a+b)]+log(w)](t)") (cos(y)+sin(x))[log(w)+tan(u)[3/(b+a)]](t)
and parsing that with anything less than parser support for [
will be. Of course, without []
support on the side of pynac, we'd have to parse a[n]
to something like get_item(a,n)
but that would be fine (and then get_item
can have the right logic to actually resolve in relevant cases, but this would be more an extension of our symbolic expressions before it's a parsing issue for maxima)
comment:39 Changed 6 years ago by
The maxima ticket https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2998/ is now marked as resolved, so with any luck, the extra parentheses issue will not occur with the new maxima release.
The fix implemented is indeed ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 190 lbp)")
, so if you do not want to wait for the next maxima release, just put this command in the initialization section of maxima_lib
.
comment:40 Changed 6 years ago by
 Report Upstream changed from N/A to Not yet reported upstream; Will do shortly.
I tried upgrading to Maxima 5.37.0 (released 17 August). The formatting problem is fixed, although some of the output still looks slightly different (more/fewer parentheses, different ordering of terms in some polynomials).
However, there is a serious bug in the function eigenvectors
causing too few eigenvectors to be returned:
(%i1) M: matrix([1, 1, 0], [0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 2]); [ 1 1 0 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0 2 ]
Maxima 5.35.1 computes the eigenvalues and eigenvectors correctly:
(%i2) eigenvectors(M); (%o2) [[[1, 2], [2, 1]], [[[1, 0, 0]], [[0, 0, 1]]]]
In Maxima 5.37.0, the eigenvector [0, 0, 1]
is missing:
(%i2) eigenvectors(M); (%o2) [[[1, 2], [2, 1]], [[[1, 0, 0]]]]
I found this out through several doctest failures in Sage.
comment:41 Changed 6 years ago by
 Report Upstream changed from Not yet reported upstream; Will do shortly. to Reported upstream. No feedback yet.
Upstream bug report: https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3008/
comment:42 followup: ↓ 44 Changed 5 years ago by
It seems that version 5.38 was released a few months ago, and we are currently at 5.35.1. I think we can upgrade now since the reported bug was fixed.
comment:43 Changed 5 years ago by
 Cc jdemeyer vbraun added
 Milestone changed from sage6.8 to sage7.3
 Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.
comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 42 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
It seems that version 5.38 was released a few months ago, and we are currently at 5.35.1. I think we can upgrade now since the reported bug was fixed.
Note that the bug fix is only in the development branch, not in 5.38.1. We can of course add the relevant upstream commit (3e4e107) as a patch.
comment:45 Changed 5 years ago by
Shall we then move forward then with upgrading to 5.38.1 with backporting 3e4e107 as a patch? Or should we ask the Maxima team to see how close they are to cutting a 5.38.2?
comment:46 Changed 5 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage7.3 to sage7.4
 Summary changed from upgrade Maxima to 5.36.1 to upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.38.1
it's about time. Should I have a go at it?
comment:47 Changed 5 years ago by
Please do. We have to make sagemath 7.4 work with maxima 5.38.1 in Debian and it would help if we had a patch that we could backport.
comment:48 Changed 5 years ago by
Dima, can you rebase your branch?
comment:49 Changed 5 years ago by
Will try later today.
comment:50 Changed 5 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/dimpase/eclupdate to public/t18920
 Commit changed from 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad to 231002039aeed3f1926ec58804bd538b5ec9385d
 Dependencies #18961 deleted
comment:51 Changed 5 years ago by
 Work issues set to rebase the rest of Maxima patches
So far, only the relevant commits from the old branch are rebased. I still have to fix patches to Maxima sources  they don't apply cleanly.
comment:52 Changed 5 years ago by
We'll also want to move to maxima 5.38.1 at least.
comment:53 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 231002039aeed3f1926ec58804bd538b5ec9385d to a4bf7166892c6dae760cd2cd1c84f5cb9675ef15
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
a4bf716  rebased patches, added eigenvectors patch too

comment:54 Changed 5 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Milestone changed from sage7.4 to sage7.5
 Work issues changed from rebase the rest of Maxima patches to fix doctests, if any.
comment:55 Changed 5 years ago by
this seems to be a change:
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 210, in sage.interfaces.maxima Failed example: g.taylor('x', 0, 3) Expected: x+x^3/6+(3*x^5)/40+(5*x^7)/112+(35*x^9)/1152 Got: f/(k^4*x^4)(2*f)/((3*k^2)*x^2)+(11*f)/45((62*k^2*f)*x^2)/945
there f
is defined as f=maxima(`1/x^2`)
, so this no longer works, defining maxima
functions this way.
Anyhow, I'm pushing the other doctest changes for this file, and few other.
comment:56 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from a4bf7166892c6dae760cd2cd1c84f5cb9675ef15 to 62b5825544b467e481c7a752604b8d45c64d9752
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
62b5825  some more easy doctest fixes

comment:57 Changed 5 years ago by
the following looks to me like a regression (or perhaps it's not really, as if one picked the right branches of the corresponding complex variable functions, it would be correct) :
File "src/sage/calculus/tests.py", line 107, in sage.calculus.tests Failed example: integrate(log(1x^2)/x, x) Expected: 1/2*log(x^2)*log(x^2 + 1) + 1/2*polylog(2, x^2 + 1) Got: log(x)*log(x + 1) + log(x)*log(x + 1) + polylog(2, x + 1) + polylog(2, x + 1)
New commits:
62b5825  some more easy doctest fixes

comment:58 Changed 5 years ago by
and another regression of sorts: despite besselexpand
set to False, one gets
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 66, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib Failed example: sum((x)^n/(factorial(n)*factorial(n+3/2)),n,0,oo) Expected: bessel_J(3/2, 2*sqrt(x))/x^(3/4) Got: 1/2*(2*x*cos(2*sqrt(x))  sqrt(x)*sin(2*sqrt(x)))/(sqrt(pi)*x^2)
Perhaps it's a deficiency of our test, which is too simple for besselexpand
to kick in.
comment:59 Changed 5 years ago by
this one needs work:
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.Ma ximaLib.sr_integral Failed example: integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x5)), x, 5, 6) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): ... TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if((_SAGE_VAR_x5)>0,log(6_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,5,plus)' in Sage
comment:60 followup: ↓ 65 Changed 5 years ago by
and this one is puzzling on the Sage side:
File "src/sage/misc/functional.py", line 658, in sage.misc.functional.integral Failed example: _ = integrate(y, x, 1000, 1000) Exception raised: ... FloatingPointError: Floating point exception
and comes from a regression in Maxima (or in Maxima/ECL version combo, one has to check):
Maxima 5.38.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp ECL 16.1.2 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) integrate((x^2)*exp(x) / (1 + exp(x))^2,x,1000,1000); Maxima encountered a Lisp error: #<a ARITHMETICERROR> Automatically continuing. To enable the Lisp debugger set *debuggerhook* to nil.
comment:61 Changed 5 years ago by
this one needs an expert opinion:
File "src/sage/schemes/projective/projective_morphism.py", line 853, in sage.schemes.projective.projective_morphism.SchemeMorphism_polynomial_projective_space.dynatomic_polynomial Failed example: f.dynatomic_polynomial(2) Expected: 0.666666666666667*x^2 + 0.333333333333333*y^2 Got: 2.00000000000000*x^2 + 0.999999999999999*y^2
The output is clearly different, but perhaps it's OK, I don't knowI suspect it's OK, as we must be interested in the projective points where it vanishes(?)  documentation talks about "roots" though, and these, projectively, remain the same.
comment:62 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 62b5825544b467e481c7a752604b8d45c64d9752 to 9ef994d79cfe0af28d17d0951b709576647a4231
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
9ef994d  more easy doctest fixes

comment:63 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from new to needs_review
setting this to "needs review", so that the issues I raised in comments can be discussed.
There are still few easy doctest fixes to be done, I'll do them.
comment:64 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 9ef994d79cfe0af28d17d0951b709576647a4231 to 3c280228256c02dcba6e6a8df2bcb98625031613
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
3c28022  more easy doctest fixes

comment:65 in reply to: ↑ 60 ; followup: ↓ 66 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
regression in Maxima/ECL version combo (I did check that with Maxima 5.38.1 running on SBCL 1.3.6 this integral computes just fine).
comment:66 in reply to: ↑ 65 ; followup: ↓ 68 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to dimpase:
regression in Maxima/ECL version combo (I did check that with Maxima 5.38.1 running on SBCL 1.3.6 this integral computes just fine).
Robert Dodier has traced this down to a problem with ECL, see https://gitlab.com/embeddablecommonlisp/ecl/issues/299
ECL has a problem comparing their own (there is no Common Lisp standard for this) infinity constants with 1/1000000...
comment:67 followup: ↓ 71 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 3c280228256c02dcba6e6a8df2bcb98625031613 to 100d9d6516e4bcfbb93ee979f086f52072ace786
comment:68 in reply to: ↑ 66 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to dimpase:
regression in Maxima/ECL version combo (I did check that with Maxima 5.38.1 running on SBCL 1.3.6 this integral computes just fine).
Robert Dodier has traced this down to a problem with ECL, see https://gitlab.com/embeddablecommonlisp/ecl/issues/299
ECL has a problem comparing their own (there is no Common Lisp standard for this) infinity constants with 1/1000000...
this is fixed by Maxima people, and in the latest commit 100d9d6
comment:69 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 100d9d6516e4bcfbb93ee979f086f52072ace786 to 814e8edc2eb51ba9706c122a39bf75d3c77e141c
comment:70 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 814e8edc2eb51ba9706c122a39bf75d3c77e141c to af7e5ff2e30dfed8bcb4c597403a6a23eb93b86a
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
af7e5ff  new scaling of dynatomic polynomial

comment:71 in reply to: ↑ 67 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to git:
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
5d86413 Merge branch 'public/t18920' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into max5381
100d9d6 workaround for #<a ARITHMETICERROR> (18920#comment:60
this workaround turned out to be buggy, and anyway ECL has released a fix for this problem, making the workaround not necessary. (But it would need an update of our ECL package, as it does depend upon a number of changes, see https://gitlab.com/embeddablecommonlisp/ecl/issues/299; they promise a new release by the end of the year).
Should we wait, or should we proceed?
comment:72 Changed 5 years ago by
I think we should either backport the fix as a patch to ECL or perhaps take a development cut.
comment:73 followup: ↓ 75 Changed 5 years ago by
I would go for the first option which looks easier: just put the ECL patch into build/pkgs/ecl/patches
.
comment:74 Changed 5 years ago by
There is the issue that you have to force an ECL rebuild. Add a p(n+1)
suffix in packageversion.txt
?
comment:75 in reply to: ↑ 73 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jpflori:
I would go for the first option which looks easier: just put the ECL patch into
build/pkgs/ecl/patches
.
a single patch is not enough. In fact, it hangs the ECL build if I do this. ECL people say the have worked on a number of related things, that is support of IEEE floats, since the release, so the latest fix relies on these. A proper ECL update is the only way I think.
comment:76 Changed 5 years ago by
We may have to wait. I could try a git snapshot in sageongentoo to see how things are going but I am overloaded as it is. I have to draw the line somewhere.
comment:77 followup: ↓ 78 Changed 5 years ago by
Hi, we're following this ticket very closely in Debian. I notice that the following two patches are still applicable to 5.38.1:
 https://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/build/pkgs/maxima/patches/0001taylor2Avoidblowingthestackwhendiffexpandisn.patch
 https://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/build/pkgs/maxima/patches/matrixexp.patch
Have these patches been forwarded upstream yet? Would they be suitable for other users of Maxima, or are they only useful for Sage?
comment:78 in reply to: ↑ 77 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to infinity0:
Hi, we're following this ticket very closely in Debian. I notice that the following two patches are still applicable to 5.38.1:
this one comes from upstream, from here: https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2520/#e3a5 (so it's sort of unfinished digging on the maxima side; it's definitely useful outside of Sage)
this is also from upstream (updated somewhat): https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2596/
again, upstream still has it open.
comment:79 followups: ↓ 81 ↓ 83 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
 Work issues changed from fix doctests, if any. to fix doctests
sage t long src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 210, in sage.interfaces.maxima Failed example: g.taylor('x', 0, 3) Expected: x+x^3/6+(3*x^5)/40+(5*x^7)/112+(35*x^9)/1152 Got: f/(k^4*x^4)(2*f)/((3*k^2)*x^2)+(11*f)/45((62*k^2*f)*x^2)/945 ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 96 in sage.interfaces.maxima [182 tests, 1 failure, 10.65 s] sage t long src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py", line 535, in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative Failed example: b = maxima(a); b Expected: %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),[_SAGE_VAR_t0=%e^_SAGE_VAR_x]) Got: %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),_SAGE_VAR_t0=%e^_SAGE_VAR_x) ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py", line 544, in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative Failed example: b = maxima(a); b Expected: %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),[_SAGE_VAR_t0=4]) Got: %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),_SAGE_VAR_t0=4) ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py", line 564, in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative Failed example: b = maxima(a); b Expected: %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0,_SAGE_VAR_t1),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),[_SAGE_VAR_t0=4,_SAGE_VAR_t1=_SAGE_VAR_y]) Got: %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0,_SAGE_VAR_y),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),_SAGE_VAR_t0=4) ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/symbolic/expression_conversions.py", line 573, in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative Failed example: b = maxima(a); b Expected: %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0,_SAGE_VAR_t1),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),[_SAGE_VAR_t0=4,_SAGE_VAR_t1=8]) Got: %at('diff('f(_SAGE_VAR_t0,8),_SAGE_VAR_t0,1),_SAGE_VAR_t0=4) ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 4 of 37 in sage.symbolic.expression_conversions.InterfaceInit.derivative [462 tests, 4 failures, 5.14 s] sage t long src/sage/calculus/tests.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/calculus/tests.py", line 107, in sage.calculus.tests Failed example: integrate(log(1x^2)/x, x) Expected: 1/2*log(x^2)*log(x^2 + 1) + 1/2*polylog(2, x^2 + 1) Got: log(x)*log(x + 1) + log(x)*log(x + 1) + polylog(2, x + 1) + polylog(2, x + 1) ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 83 in sage.calculus.tests [82 tests, 1 failure, 8.56 s] sage t long src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 66, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib Failed example: sum((x)^n/(factorial(n)*factorial(n+3/2)),n,0,oo) Expected: bessel_J(3/2, 2*sqrt(x))/x^(3/4) Got: 1/2*(2*x*cos(2*sqrt(x))  sqrt(x)*sin(2*sqrt(x)))/(sqrt(pi)*x^2) ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral Failed example: integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x5)), x, 5, 6) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 498, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 861, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral[12]>", line 1, in <module> integrate(Integer(1) / (Integer(1) + abs(xInteger(5))), x, Integer(5), Integer(6)) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/misc/functional.py", line 662, in integral return x.integral(*args, **kwds) File "sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 11624, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.integral (/usr/local/src/sageconfig/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/expression.cpp:64315) return integral(self, *args, **kwds) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py", line 777, in integrate return definite_integral(expression, v, a, b, hold=hold) File "sage/symbolic/function.pyx", line 995, in sage.symbolic.function.BuiltinFunction.__call__ (/usr/local/src/sageconfig/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/function.cpp:11329) res = super(BuiltinFunction, self).__call__( File "sage/symbolic/function.pyx", line 485, in sage.symbolic.function.Function.__call__ (/usr/local/src/sageconfig/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/function.cpp:6372) res = g_function_evalv(self._serial, vec, hold) File "sage/symbolic/function.pyx", line 1084, in sage.symbolic.function.BuiltinFunction._evalf_or_eval_ (/usr/local/src/sageconfig/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/function.cpp:12689) return self._eval0_(*args) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py", line 178, in _eval_ return integrator(*args) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/integration/external.py", line 24, in maxima_integrator result = maxima.sr_integral(expression, v, a, b) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 799, in sr_integral return max_to_sr(maxima_eval(([max_integrate],[sr_to_max(SR(a)) for a in args]))) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 1672, in max_to_sr args=[max_to_sr(a) for a in max_args] File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 1672, in max_to_sr args=[max_to_sr(a) for a in max_args] File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 1663, in max_to_sr sage_expr=SR(maxima(expr)) File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 953, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (/usr/local/src/sageconfig/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/parent.c:9849) return mor._call_(x) File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 238, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.NamedConvertMap._call_ (/usr/local/src/sageconfig/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:6388) cdef Element e = method(C) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1255, in _symbolic_ return R(self._sage_()) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1230, in _sage_ maxima=self.parent()) File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1897, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if((_SAGE_VAR_x5)>0,log(6_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,5,plus)' in Sage **********************************************************************
comment:80 Changed 5 years ago by
Some of these doctests are solely Maxima's regressions, one is fixable via a ECL update. I can just mark them appropriately and proceed, if this is acceptable.
comment:81 in reply to: ↑ 79 ; followup: ↓ 82 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral Failed example: integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x5)), x, 5, 6) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): ... File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1897, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if((_SAGE_VAR_x5)>0,log(6_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,5,plus)' in Sage **********************************************************************
This is both #17892 and #20191, because the result changed, presumably to something more correct that needs these symbolic functions we don't have atm.
comment:82 in reply to: ↑ 81 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to rws:
Replying to jdemeyer:
File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interfaces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral Failed example: integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x5)), x, 5, 6) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): ... File "/usr/local/src/sageconfig/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1897, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if((_SAGE_VAR_x5)>0,log(6_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,5,plus)' in Sage **********************************************************************This is both #17892 and #20191, because the result changed, presumably to something more correct that needs these symbolic functions we don't have atm.
I think this one is a new Maxima bug: https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3237/  still under investigation by Maxima people.
comment:83 in reply to: ↑ 79 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
sage t long src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 210, in sage.interfaces.maxima Failed example: g.taylor('x', 0, 3) Expected: x+x^3/6+(3*x^5)/40+(5*x^7)/112+(35*x^9)/1152 Got: f/(k^4*x^4)(2*f)/((3*k^2)*x^2)+(11*f)/45((62*k^2*f)*x^2)/945
That's odd. The doctest skipped to the next result line which is of course different.
I think this one is a new Maxima bug: https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3237/  still under investigation by Maxima people.
Looking more closely, I agree.
comment:84 Changed 5 years ago by
 Cc paulmasson added
comment:85 Changed 5 years ago by
ecl
16.1.3 is out. I haven't checked yet if all we want is in there but I will look int it.
comment:86 Changed 5 years ago by
If possible, do the ECL upgrade in a new ticket.
comment:87 Changed 5 years ago by
Considering the havoc it wrecks in the building of the documentation it deserves its own ticket. Surprisingly, I haven't spotted libecl
in the numerous backtraces produced before the build petered out. But that's the only thing I changed from one successful build to this one.
comment:88 Changed 5 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage7.5 to sage7.6
comment:89 Changed 5 years ago by
 Dependencies set to #22191
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.38.1 to upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.39
maxima 5.39.0 has been released. ECL upgrade is happening on #22191.
comment:90 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from af7e5ff2e30dfed8bcb4c597403a6a23eb93b86a to 6bae4b1c1c95c08233c8b36a62baaff1bbc9a428
comment:91 Changed 5 years ago by
On this branch, the following works at the prompt:
sage: K.<i> = NumberField(x^2+1) sage: (6*i + 6).factor() (i) * (i + 1)^3 * 3
but crashes in testing:
Using optional=mpir,python2,sage Doctesting 1 file using 8 threads. sage t src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", line 1752, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor Failed example: (6*i + 6).factor() Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 498, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 861, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor[1]>", line 1, in <module> (Integer(6)*i + Integer(6)).factor() File "sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", line 1782, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor (build/cythonized/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.cpp:19881) if not P.is_principal(): File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1115, in is_principal self._cache_bnfisprincipal(proof) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1058, in _cache_bnfisprincipal bnf = self.number_field().pari_bnf(proof) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 3603, in pari_bnf self._pari_bnf = f.bnfinit(1) File "sage/libs/cypari2/auto_gen.pxi", line 2984, in sage.libs.cypari2.gen.gen_auto.bnfinit (build/cythonized/sage/libs/cypari2/gen.c:17894) sig_on() File "src/cysignals/signals.pyx", line 105, in cysignals.signals.sig_raise_exception (build/src/cysignals/signals.c:1519) FloatingPointError: Floating point exception ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 8 in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor [1051 tests, 1 failure, 10.88 s]  sage t src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx # 1 doctest failed
Looks like the testing environment is a bit shot, but I cannot figure out why.
comment:92 Changed 5 years ago by
here we get fp exception instead of ArithmeticError
File "src/sage/arith/misc.py", line 2696, in sage.arith.misc.is_squarefree Failed example: is_squarefree(a  3) Expected: Traceback (most recent call last): ... ArithmeticError: nonprincipal ideal in factorization Got: <BLANKLINE> Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 498, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 861, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.arith.misc.is_squarefree[13]>", line 1, in <module> is_squarefree(a  Integer(3)) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/arith/misc.py", line 2711, in is_squarefree return all(r[1] == 1 for r in factor(n)) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/arith/misc.py", line 2479, in factor return n.factor(**kwds) File "sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", line 1782, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor (build/cythonized/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.cpp:19881) if not P.is_principal(): File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1115, in is_principal self._cache_bnfisprincipal(proof) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1058, in _cache_bnfisprincipal bnf = self.number_field().pari_bnf(proof) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 3603, in pari_bnf self._pari_bnf = f.bnfinit(1) File "sage/libs/cypari2/auto_gen.pxi", line 2984, in sage.libs.cypari2.gen.gen_auto.bnfinit (build/cythonized/sage/libs/cypari2/gen.c:17894) sig_on() File "src/cysignals/signals.pyx", line 105, in cysignals.signals.sig_raise_exception (build/src/cysignals/signals.c:1519) FloatingPointError: Floating point exception
comment:93 Changed 5 years ago by
Is the following a regression in Maxima?:
sage t warnlong 87.4 src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 10600, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.solve Failed example: solve(Q*sqrt(Q^2 + 2)  1, Q, to_poly_solve=True) Expected: [Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) + 1), Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) + 1)] Got: [Q == sqrt(sqrt(2)  1)]
comment:94 Changed 5 years ago by
The following works at the prompt:
sage: F.<omega> = NumberField(x^2+x+1) sage: xx = polygen(F) sage: ps = [p for p, _ in F(7).factor()] sage: ps [3*omega  2, 3*omega + 1]
but crashes in testing:
sage t warnlong 87.4 src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 1246, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic Failed example: ps = [p for p, _ in F(7).factor()] Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 498, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 861, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.rings.number_field.number_field.NumberField_generic[43]>", line 1, in <module> ps = [p for p, _ in F(Integer(7)).factor()] File "sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", line 1782, in sage.rings.number_field.number_field_element.NumberFieldElement.factor (build/cythonized/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.cpp:19881) if not P.is_principal(): File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1115, in is_principal self._cache_bnfisprincipal(proof) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_ideal.py", line 1058, in _cache_bnfisprincipal bnf = self.number_field().pari_bnf(proof) File "/home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/number_field/number_field.py", line 3603, in pari_bnf self._pari_bnf = f.bnfinit(1) File "sage/libs/cypari2/auto_gen.pxi", line 2984, in sage.libs.cypari2.gen.gen_auto.bnfinit (build/cythonized/sage/libs/cypari2/gen.c:17894) sig_on() File "src/cysignals/signals.pyx", line 105, in cysignals.signals.sig_raise_exception (build/src/cysignals/signals.c:1519) FloatingPointError: Floating point exception
comment:95 Changed 5 years ago by
This works at the prompt (with a good plot, too):
sage: plot(bessel_Y(1,x), (x,0,5), color='blue') Launched png viewer for Graphics object consisting of 1 graphics primitive
but dumps core in testing:
sage t src/sage/functions/bessel.py ... sage: plot(bessel_Y(1,x), (x,0,5), color='blue') ## line 513 ##  /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/cysignals/signals.so(+0x4495)[0x7f677f921495] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/cysignals/signals.so(+0x44e5)[0x7f677f9214e5] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/cysignals/signals.so(+0x7e38)[0x7f677f924e38] /lib64/libpthread.so.0(+0x10a00)[0x7f678c3d2a00] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libmpfr.so.4(mpfr_get_d+0x217)[0x7f6774bafd97] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/rings/real_mpfr.so(+0x11bd7)[0x7f6578157bd7] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyNumber_Float+0x2b)[0x7f678c6335cb] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x82ed5)[0x7f678c662ed5] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0xbeae3)[0x7f678c69eae3] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/libs/mpmath/utils.so(+0x765e)[0x7f6577a9265e] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/libs/mpmath/utils.so(+0xe0ee)[0x7f6577a990ee] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x7ce1)[0x7f678c6ec461] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x65f7c)[0x7f678c645f7c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/function.so(+0xad3f)[0x7f655d2b8d3f] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/function.so(+0x23cd1)[0x7f655d2d1cd1] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/function.so(+0xad3f)[0x7f655d2b8d3f] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/function.so(+0x2a868)[0x7f655d2d8868] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords+0x47)[0x7f678c6e4187] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/ext/interpreters/wrapper_py.so(interp_py+0x398)[0x7f654092e1a8] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/ext/interpreters/wrapper_py.so(+0x391b)[0x7f654091e91b] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x56da)[0x7f678c6e9e5a] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x18aa)[0x7f678c6e602a] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x18aa)[0x7f678c6e602a] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/expression.so(+0x1a03f)[0x7f655dde203f] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/symbolic/expression.so(+0x343de)[0x7f655ddfc3de] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x625b)[0x7f678c6ea9db] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85e4d)[0x7f678c665e4d] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x18aa)[0x7f678c6e602a] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCode+0x19)[0x7f678c6ee139] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x7428)[0x7f678c6ebba8] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85d7c)[0x7f678c665d7c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x65f7c)[0x7f678c645f7c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0xc20b5)[0x7f678c6a20b5] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x56da)[0x7f678c6e9e5a] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8271)[0x7f678c6ec9f1] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x85d7c)[0x7f678c665d7c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0x65f7c)[0x7f678c645f7c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0xc24fd)[0x7f678c6a24fd] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(+0xbeb2f)[0x7f678c69eb2f] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyObject_Call+0x43)[0x7f678c634c13] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x56da)[0x7f678c6e9e5a] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8271)[0x7f678c6ec9f1] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalFrameEx+0x8020)[0x7f678c6ec7a0] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCodeEx+0x81c)[0x7f678c6ee01c] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyEval_EvalCode+0x19)[0x7f678c6ee139] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyRun_FileExFlags+0x8a)[0x7f678c7121da] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(PyRun_SimpleFileExFlags+0xd7)[0x7f678c713587] /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0(Py_Main+0xc3e)[0x7f678c729c4e] /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f678b918580] python(_start+0x29)[0x400759]  Attaching gdb to process id 25288. Saved trace to /home/scratch/dimpase/.sage/crash_logs/crash_vEDCJn.log  Unhandled SIGFPE: An unhandled floating point exception occurred. This probably occurred because a *compiled* module has a bug in it and is not properly wrapped with sig_on(), sig_off(). Python will now terminate.  **********************************************************************  sage t src/sage/functions/bessel.py # Killed due to floating point exception
comment:96 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_info
I think I need an idea what's wrong here, before being able to go forward. This discrepancy between testsuite vs prompt is really odd.
comment:97 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 6bae4b1c1c95c08233c8b36a62baaff1bbc9a428 to 44da831e63daba36b44eedb719044ea67f5f362e
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
44da831  version number in tests

comment:98 followup: ↓ 99 Changed 5 years ago by
here is a bad one  reproducible on two different systems;
I don't understand what's going on here; it appears that computing g(x)
,
the Taylor expansion of log(x)
, breaks log(x)
plotting (in case the leftmost
interval point is 0).
Probably this initialises some symbolics, breaking handling of infinity in the process...
sage: plot(log(x),(x,0,2)) Launched png viewer for Graphics object consisting of 1 graphics primitive sage: g(x)=taylor(log(x),x,1,6); g x > 1/6*(x  1)^6 + 1/5*(x  1)^5  1/4*(x  1)^4 + 1/3*(x  1)^3  1/2*(x  1)^2 + x  1 sage: plot(log(x),(x,0,2))  /home/scratch/dimpase/sage/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/cysignals/signals.so(+0x4495)[0x7f5dbb0d9495] [...]  Unhandled SIGFPE: An unhandled floating point exception occurred. This probably occurred because a *compiled* module has a bug in it and is not properly wrapped with sig_on(), sig_off(). Python will now terminate.
New commits:
44da831  version number in tests

comment:99 in reply to: ↑ 98 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
here is a bad one  reproducible on two different systems; I don't understand what's going on here; it appears that computing
g(x)
, the Taylor expansion oflog(x)
, breakslog(x)
plotting (in case the leftmost interval point is 0).Probably this initialises some symbolics, breaking handling of infinity in the process...
Further entry point  the crash does not happen if I revert back to ECL 16.1.2.
(and keep new Maxima version).
That is, it seems that the call to taylor
loads ecl+maxima, and sets up some stuff
that is responsible for handling infinities.
comment:100 Changed 5 years ago by
I think a number of things point back to ecl16.1.3
so it may belong to #22191. I remember having a lot of similar stuff when changing just ecl
without change maxima
(still need a rebuild though) in sageongentoo. Right now I am just locked on 16.1.2.
comment:101 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 44da831e63daba36b44eedb719044ea67f5f362e to 530a89ec77171bb371e5244974187204a72eba32
comment:102 Changed 5 years ago by
the last commit appears to fix the SIGFPE problem. More testing...
comment:103 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 530a89ec77171bb371e5244974187204a72eba32 to 1b821c4d8c75c5a5e33564c23753e89c72643bee
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
1b821c4  easy doctest fixes

comment:104 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_info to needs_work
still a couple of SIGFPEs to figure out, but otherwise does not look too bad. I'll post ptestlong results later today.
comment:105 Changed 5 years ago by
SIGFPEs are of the same sort as above:
sage: g(x)=taylor(log(x),x,1,6) # this initialises ECL/Maxima sage: q = (2^53) * 2^971/1 sage: float(q) # boom, instead of "inf" as the answer. ... Unhandled SIGFPE: An unhandled floating point exception occurred. ...
which I traced down to the call to ldexp
at sage/rings/rational.pyx:3799
.
Note that this is with ac8348c
commit already in (and so ECL_OPT_TRAP_SIGFPE
= 0), so there is more of the same kind of story as above, but harder. I don't see what's going wrong here now.
This is a different to division by 0 kind of FPE, so this is perhaps the reason.
comment:106 Changed 5 years ago by
 Branch changed from public/t18920 to public/maxima5390
 Commit changed from 1b821c4d8c75c5a5e33564c23753e89c72643bee to 945086147176055ab0a35d41425cfb10783aeb51
 Dependencies #22191 deleted
I've decided to stick to ECL 16.1.2 for this ticket. (ECL 16.1.3 has a problem that cannot be fixed quickly, and benefits of using it here are pretty minimal).
Last 10 new commits:
4163ef8  rebased patches, added eigenvectors patch too

5b9a7af  some more easy doctest fixes

da15a6d  more easy doctest fixes

4ea0e8e  workaround for #<a ARITHMETICERROR> (18920#comment:60

7c7a0f3  fix for maxima bug #3236

4377282  reflect patch's dependence on an earlier maxima tree commit

29f595a  new scaling of dynatomic polynomial

7577f86  bumped up for 5.39.0. Sage builds (with ecl 16.1.3)

759104a  version number in tests

9450861  easy doctest fixes

comment:107 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 945086147176055ab0a35d41425cfb10783aeb51 to 3e1dcefdd891434a777c426dc0f784c7091219af
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
3e1dcef  few more easy fixes

comment:108 followup: ↓ 116 Changed 5 years ago by
With this branch, the following remains to be fixed (or marked as known bugs):
1) this appears to be a Maxima regression bug report:
sage t src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx ****************************************************************** **** File "src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 10600, in sage.symbo lic.expression.Expression.solve Failed example: solve(Q*sqrt(Q^2 + 2)  1, Q, to_poly_solve=True) Expected: [Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) + 1), Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) + 1)] Got: [Q == sqrt(sqrt(2)  1)]
2) this is weird (sage interface problem?)  scratch this, it's a typo!
sage t src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py ****************************************************************** **** File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py", line 210, in sage.interfaces .maxima Failed example: g.taylor('x', 0, 3) Expected: x+x^3/6+(3*x^5)/40+(5*x^7)/112+(35*x^9)/1152 Got: f/(k^4*x^4)(2*f)/((3*k^2)*x^2)+(11*f)/45((62*k^2*f)*x^2)/945 **********************************************************************
3) this looks like a maxima regression bug report:
sage t src/sage/calculus/tests.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/calculus/tests.py", line 107, in sage.calculus.tests Failed example: integrate(log(1x^2)/x, x) Expected: 1/2*log(x^2)*log(x^2 + 1) + 1/2*dilog(x^2 + 1) Got: log(x)*log(x + 1) + log(x)*log(x + 1) + dilog(x + 1) + dilog(x + 1)
4) this is a known Maxima issue bug report:
sage t src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py ****************************************************************** **** File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interf aces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral Failed example: integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x5)), x, 5, 6) Exception raised: ... TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if((_SAGE_VAR_x5)>0,log(6_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,5,plus)' in Sage **********************************************************************
comment:109 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 3e1dcefdd891434a777c426dc0f784c7091219af to 941b62c41b9266ddd6bceb5a82d228432b2ae2ce
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. Last 10 new commits:
f7448ef  some more easy doctest fixes

81463e2  more easy doctest fixes

386e276  workaround for #<a ARITHMETICERROR> (18920#comment:60

a0cd5d4  fix for maxima bug #3236

5594310  reflect patch's dependence on an earlier maxima tree commit

c5358b4  new scaling of dynatomic polynomial

92d1c59  bumped up for 5.39.0. Sage builds (with ecl 16.1.3)

2dbe3cf  version number in tests

efe9848  easy doctest fixes

941b62c  few more easy fixes

comment:110 Changed 5 years ago by
cleaned up the branch
comment:111 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 941b62c41b9266ddd6bceb5a82d228432b2ae2ce to fbc2293bfca9bd1a8612a48b13fcc38e012c3a31
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
fbc2293  marked Maxima regressions: #18920, comment 108

comment:112 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from fbc2293bfca9bd1a8612a48b13fcc38e012c3a31 to 68a0ab241a065f9f133a8915cc2141b9f514892c
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
68a0ab2  one more format output change

comment:113 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
OK, all done, ready for review, at last.
comment:114 Changed 5 years ago by
Instead of removing this doctest:

src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx
diff git a/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx b/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx index 80c7149..0ca7904 100644
a b cdef class Expression(CommutativeRingElement): 10597 10597 Q 10598 10598 sage: solve(Q*sqrt(Q^2 + 2)  1, Q) 10599 10599 [Q == 1/sqrt(Q^2 + 2)] 10600 10601 The following example is a regression in Maxima 5.39.0, 10602 it used to be possible to get 2 solutions here, see 10603 https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3276/:: 10604 10600 10605 sage: solve(Q*sqrt(Q^2 + 2)  1, Q, to_poly_solve=True) 10601 [Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) + 1), Q == 1/sqrt(sqrt(2) +1)]10606 [Q == sqrt(sqrt(2)  1)] 10602 10607 10603 10608 In some cases there may be infinitely many solutions indexed 10604 10609 by a dummy variable. If it begins with ``z``, it is implicitly
I would instead mark the previous solution as # known bug
or at least keep the solution. Same in calculus/tests.py
.
comment:115 Changed 5 years ago by
 Cc charpent added
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
On Debian testing (Core i7 + 16 GB Ram), on a branch where R 3.2.2 is merged with the latest released Sage, a parallel test (MAKE="make j8"
) gives :
 sage t long warnlong 114.8 src/sage/tests/cmdline.py # 2 doctests failed sage t long warnlong 114.8 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py # 1 doctest failed sage t long warnlong 114.8 src/sage/interfaces/tests.py # 1 doctest failed sage t long warnlong 114.8 src/sage/homology/simplicial_complex.py # 1 doctest failed sage t long warnlong 114.8 src/sage/modules/free_module_element.pyx # Timed out 
4 of these five are transient, and pass when run sandalone.
However:
charpent@asus16ec:/usr/local/sage7$ sage t long warnlong 114.8 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py Running doctests with ID 2017011816594126a3a809. Git branch: testR Using optional=database_gap,giacpy_sage,mpir,python2,sage,xz Doctesting 1 file. sage t long warnlong 114.8 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py", line 3532, in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.NCPolynomialIdeal.groebner_basis Failed example: ideal(J.transformed_basis()).change_ring(P).interreduced_basis() # optional  giacpy_sage Expected: [a  60*c^3 + 158/7*c^2 + 8/7*c  1, b + 30*c^3  79/7*c^2 + 3/7*c, c^4  10/21*c^3 + 1/84*c^2 + 1/84*c] Got: [7*a  420*c^3 + 158*c^2 + 8*c  7, 7*b + 210*c^3  79*c^2 + 3*c, 84*c^4  40*c^3 + c^2 + c] ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 67 in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.NCPolynomialIdeal.groebner_basis [727 tests, 1 failure, 9.29 s]  sage t long warnlong 114.8 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py # 1 doctest failed  Total time for all tests: 9.4 seconds cpu time: 15.5 seconds cumulative wall time: 9.3 seconds
This latter bug is known, not really a bug and has its own ticket.
Furthermore, Maxima 5.38.1 (Debian testing current version) fixes one of my pet peeves :
charpent@SAP5057241:~$ maxima Maxima 5.38.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp GNU Common Lisp (GCL) GCL 2.6.12 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) integrate(f(x),x); (%o2) 'integrate(f(x),x) (%i3) taylor(integrate(f(x),x),x,x_0,2); (%o3) 'at('integrate(f(x),x),x = x_0)+f(x_0)*(xx_0) +(('at('diff(f(x),x,1),x = x_0)) *(xx_0)^2) /2
Whereas Sage's Maxima gives :
charpent@SAP5057241:~$ sage maxima ;;; Loading #P"/usr/local/sage7/local/lib/ecl/sbbsdsockets.fas" ;;; Loading #P"/usr/local/sage7/local/lib/ecl/sockets.fas" ;;; Loading #P"/usr/local/sage7/local/lib/ecl/defsystem.fas" ;;; Loading #P"/usr/local/sage7/local/lib/ecl/cmp.fas" Maxima 5.39.0 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp ECL 16.1.2 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) display2d:false; (%o1) false (%i2) integrate(f(x),x); (%o2) 'integrate(f(x),x) (%i3) taylor(integrate(f(x),x),x,x_0,2); taylor: unable to expand at a point specified in: 'integrate(f(x),x)  an error. To debug this try: debugmode(true);
So, we have :
 already known problems with parallel testing ;
 one already reported and ticketed test failure ;
 one not already reported problem, that continues the previous behaviour of MaximainSage, whereas this behavior has been fixed in 5.38.1.
None of these seem to impede giving this ticket a positive_review
. Which I'd do unless you think that the behavior of the taylor(integrate(...)...)
should/could be fixed with this issue.
However, I think the objection of Thierry Scrim (?) valid, and I think it is more important, since it points out a case where Maxima's answer is incomplete. Hence ==>needs_work
.
comment:116 in reply to: ↑ 108 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
4) this is a known Maxima issue bug report:
sage t src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py ****************************************************************** **** File "src/sage/interfaces/maxima_lib.py", line 724, in sage.interf aces.maxima_lib.MaximaLib.sr_integral Failed example: integrate(1 / (1 + abs(x5)), x, 5, 6) Exception raised: ... TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'limit(if((_SAGE_VAR_x5)>0,log(6_SAGE_VAR_x),log(abs(_SAGE_VAR_x4))),_SAGE_VAR_x,5,plus)' in Sage **********************************************************************
Actually I believe Maxima is not to blame here, and in the bug report the dev says "not technically incorrect". See #17892 for our symbolic limit ticket.
comment:117 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 68a0ab241a065f9f133a8915cc2141b9f514892c to 0f2acfee0045d5179c805333c06061c2a4fe8ae8
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
0f2acfe  addressed the reviewers' concerns.

comment:118 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:119 Changed 5 years ago by
As a minor point, when reviewing documentation tickets I always ask that lines be kept to about the same length. I would appreciate if you could break the long lines here, especially in the tutorials. Thanks.
comment:120 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
This time, three failures in a parallel ptestlong
:
 sage t long warnlong 110.0 src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py # 1 doctest failed sage t long warnlong 110.0 src/sage/homology/simplicial_complex.py # 1 doctest failed sage t long warnlong 110.0 src/sage/graphs/generators/smallgraphs.py # Timed out 
Olny the firs one persists when run standalone, and is our old aquaintance... The other two are transient (race conditions ?)
Since the explanation given in #22191 show that the problem I signaled before is in ECL's realm, not Maxima's, there is no reason not to give this a positive_review
.
Aaaaahhhhh !
comment:121 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Reviewer name missing
comment:122 Changed 5 years ago by
 Reviewers set to Travis Scrimshaw, Emmanuel Charpentier
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
 Work issues fix doctests deleted
comment:123 Changed 5 years ago by
 Reviewers changed from Travis Scrimshaw, Emmanuel Charpentier to Travis Scrimshaw, Emmanuel Charpentier, François Bissey, Jeroen Demeyer, Nils Bruin
Adding some other people who I recall contributing comments, but may not be comprehensive or conservative (i.e., add/subtract your name).
comment:124 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit 0f2acfee0045d5179c805333c06061c2a4fe8ae8 deleted
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
public/maxima5390 doesn't exist... typo?
comment:125 Changed 5 years ago by
what? so it did quietly vanish? IMHO the whole git tree is fcked:
$ git push trac HEAD:public/maxima5390bis error: unable to push to unqualified destination: public/maxima5390bis The destination refspec neither matches an existing ref on the remote nor begins with refs/, and we are unable to guess a prefix based on the source ref. error: failed to push some refs to 'git@trac.sagemath.org:sage.git'
EDIT: this went through on a 3rd attempt
comment:126 Changed 5 years ago by
 Branch changed from public/maxima5390 to public/maxima5390bis
 Commit set to 0f2acfee0045d5179c805333c06061c2a4fe8ae8
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:127 Changed 5 years ago by
Could please a reviewer compare the new branch with the old one he has locally? E.g. as follows:
git fetch trac public/maxima5390bis git diff FETCH_HEAD trac/public/maxima5390
if this diff
returns nothing we're good to go.
comment:128 Changed 5 years ago by
I use gittrac (nice !...), so I did :
charpent@asus16ec:/usr/local/sage7$ git fetch trac public/maxima5390bis Depuis git://trac.sagemath.org/sage * branch public/maxima5390bis > FETCH_HEAD charpent@asus16ec:/usr/local/sage7$ git diff FETCH_HEAD t/18920/public/maxima5390 charpent@asus16ec:/usr/local/sage7$
So, unless I'm mistaken, "we're good to go"...
HTH,
comment:129 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:130 Changed 5 years ago by
Thanks. Hope the branch will not be cut again...
comment:131 followup: ↓ 134 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Fails to build, e.g. http://build.sagedev.org/#/builders/16/builds/8/steps/5/logs/maxima
comment:132 Changed 5 years ago by
It says makeinfo not found
. Great, we always had a few for maxima's documentation but I thought makeinfo
was a requisite.
comment:133 followup: ↓ 135 Changed 5 years ago by
Maybe there is a make target that doesn't build the texinfo docs?
comment:134 in reply to: ↑ 131 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
Fails to build, e.g. http://build.sagedev.org/#/builders/16/builds/8/steps/5/logs/maxima
I cannot find anything there, the interface is pretty impossible to use for me. Can I have a link to the log file I can download?
comment:135 in reply to: ↑ 133 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
Maybe there is a make target that doesn't build the texinfo docs?
I'd say, just add makeinfo
to the list of prereqs.
It has been necessary to have it to build Maxima
for years, see e.g. https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2878/
And it looks like the latter Maxima ticket did not fix anything :)
comment:136 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
something that has been a problem since Maxima 5.23 should not stop this ticket...
comment:137 followup: ↓ 139 Changed 5 years ago by
I think we may have some workaround by touching the right file. It is not in the current spkginstall, so we have dropped it at some point. You are right to point to upstream that they have a regression. For info: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/commit/6656b7b171d83078bd55c3cceea0f45da517ded0
comment:138 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
Seriously, the buildbots don't have makeinfo installed
comment:139 in reply to: ↑ 137 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I think we may have some workaround by touching the right file. It is not in the current spkginstall, so we have dropped it at some point. You are right to point to upstream that they have a regression. For info: https://github.com/sagemath/sage/commit/6656b7b171d83078bd55c3cceea0f45da517ded0
perhaps our workound + Maxima's workarond + no makeinfo == error... :)
I'll check this.
comment:140 followup: ↓ 142 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I am not convinced whether it's at all possible to build Maxima 5.39.0 and its docs without makeinfo
. We are on our own here, as the official upstream prereq for the build includes autotools.
Instead of wasting time on this academic issue, I'd like to rather include makeinfo
into Sage prereqs.
comment:141 Changed 5 years ago by
I have opened a new Maxima ticket on the makeinfo
question.
comment:142 in reply to: ↑ 140 ; followup: ↓ 146 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
I am not convinced whether it's at all possible to build Maxima 5.39.0 and its docs without
makeinfo
. We are on our own here, as the official upstream prereq for the build includes autotools.Instead of wasting time on this academic issue, I'd like to rather include
makeinfo
into Sage prereqs.
Seconded, on basic principles :
[ The following rant is not gratuitous. It's just a lemma. Bear with me for a while... ]
Our "batteries included" socalled philosophy has pushed us to include more and more software of peripheral interest at best up to the point where Sage is now a smallscale, highly specialized Linux distribution.
This distribution is of great interest to sage builders (i. e. potential developpers). It is at best an hindrance (read "pain in the *ss") to what should be one of our primary targets : the potential users of Sage. And no, this cannot be restricted to research mathematicians specializing in number theory...
For example, going to the pain to build our own GCC collection seems to me pushing consistency exigences a bit too far. Requiring from an installer (i. e. potential developper) to take the pain to install a matching set of decently recent compilers does not sound too much to me.
Corollary : our binary tarballs/packages should be sound enough to satisfy the largest possible number of potential users. That means that our users should not be requested to install and manage a virtual machine setup, nor a complicated installation on "exotic" platforms. An undergraduate or even high school student, a practising engineer, etc... should be able to install a precompiled binary and go use Sage as he uses a word processor, without having to install a $#!+load of tools he/she'll never use for anything else.
Therefore, if we need autotools to build Maxima, let's use existing autotools distributions, and do not try to avoid it. Or maintaining our own port. Maintaining our ports should be limited to the cases where there is a mathematical reason to do so.
[ End of rant. Now for its consequences : ]
Therefore, I think that wiggling away from one more tool to build Sage amounts to trying to alleviate the load of developers. Which is the wrong target. Our primary goal should be to alleviate the load imposed on users.
Those two sets were largely overlapping in the begionning of Sage, which as long been targeted on a certain research community. This is no longer the case. Sage now needs a lot of users, able to report problems, if we want to be able to fix them.
So, in the present case, if autotools is needed to build Maxima, let's depend on it for building Sage. But users of a binary distribution of Sage should not have to bother themselves with that.
In other (shorter) words : I'm not bothered by one more build dependency, if I can lighten the run dependencies... This seems the case here.
Corollary : the time spent on arguing and nitpicking over autotools would have been better spent helping Eric Bray's Cygwin port cum Windows installer, which opens us a quite large pool of potential users...
comment:143 followup: ↓ 147 Changed 5 years ago by
autotools are not needed to build Maxima, but makeinfo apparently is.
Perhaps one can build Maxima without makeinfo if autotools are available, I didn't check, for this is even more academic question... makeinfo is a very easy prereq, as it is available on every system we build Sage on, and included in XCode too.
comment:144 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 0f2acfee0045d5179c805333c06061c2a4fe8ae8 to 0ee645af1e93d1c2b74da7848d07157f0181f2a2
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
0ee645a  Reintroduce the makeinfo workaround until upstream fix it again

comment:145 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
I think this is enough.
I have now reintroduced the makeinfo
workaround and my logs says it is safe to use on a makeinfo
less system.
I appreciate the feeling Emmanuel but the place for it is sagedevel  of course nothing is likely to happen for it in the short term. The reality is now there are plenty of "user space" package management solution around (not so many when sage was started) and most of them do a better job than the sage packaging system. The other reality is those other packaging system usually don't play well with sage. We pick problems regularly from users with a default installation of brew on OS X for example.
comment:146 in reply to: ↑ 142 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to charpent:
So, in the present case, if autotools is needed to build Maxima, let's depend on it for building Sage. But users of a binary distribution of Sage should not have to bother themselves with that.
In other (shorter) words : I'm not bothered by one more build dependency, if I can lighten the run dependencies... This seems the case here.
Users of binary distributions of Sage should still be able to install optional and experimental packages. Since there is no binary distribution of optional packages, buildtime tools need to be included.
I would propose to add a standard package that includes (a current version of) texinfo (which provides makeinfo). Note that our autotools spkg packages only an ancient version of texinfo (4.13) (see #21196 for a discussion).
comment:147 in reply to: ↑ 143 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
autotools are not needed to build Maxima, but makeinfo apparently is.
It should not be; the bug is that the necessary TeX files are not included in the tarball. Even if the user does not have makeinfo, there should be no problem because the configure script will set $(MAKEINFO) to a command that does nothing. There is at least one place where a Maxima makefile uses makeinfo
instead of $(MAKEINFO)
. In #17514 I fixed this specific one, but I seem to remember another problem of this kind in newer Maxima versions. Anyway, the only way to really fix this is if the Maxima developers make sure that all TeX files are in the distribution.
comment:148 Changed 5 years ago by
 Cc paulmasson removed
comment:149 Changed 5 years ago by
I have got a funny failing doctest in sageongentoo but I am not completely sure this ticket is responsible (I am testing from the current develop branch of Volker's fork where he is testing this now)
sage t long /usr/lib64/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/functions/special.py ********************************************************************** File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/functions/special.py", line 232, in sage.functions.special.SphericalHarmonic._eval_ Failed example: spherical_harmonic(3,2,1,2*pi/3) Expected: 1/240*sqrt(30)*(15*I*sqrt(7)*sqrt(3)  15*sqrt(7))*cos(1)*sin(1)^2/sqrt(pi) Got: 1/240*sqrt(30)*(15*I*sqrt(7)*sqrt(3) + 15*sqrt(7))*cos(1)*sin(1)^2/sqrt(pi) **********************************************************************
As you can see they are actually identical...
comment:150 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
I get the same on the buildbot....
comment:151 Changed 5 years ago by
All bots or a mixture?
comment:152 Changed 5 years ago by
all
comment:153 Changed 5 years ago by
Doctest introduced by #20939 merged in 7.6.beta0, that's why it was missed. The branch needs rebasing before it can be fixed. Incoming.
comment:154 Changed 5 years ago by
Please go on with this. I have negative amount of time available till the end of the week.
comment:155 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 0ee645af1e93d1c2b74da7848d07157f0181f2a2 to a6c51e6d71ceec22b0f08c28f9a1c29078fe5b14
comment:156 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
Definitely, not waiting for you. Here we go again, straight to positive review.
comment:157 Changed 5 years ago by
 Branch changed from public/maxima5390bis to a6c51e6d71ceec22b0f08c28f9a1c29078fe5b14
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
For info, I have been using ecl 15.3.7 for a while in sageongentoo. That part is a straight upgrade as far as I can see. I do not remember having tried a newer maxima but it usually breaks a lest a couple of doctest.