Better debug mode for singular 4 #21624

jpflori · 2016-10-03T10:03:45Z

This is a follow up to #17254 which upgraded to singular 4:

debug (with xalloc) build on OS X (om_Info gets undefined (U) in Singular, note that it is ok on linux (B), maybe depends on ocmpiler, linker vesions)
failing test in debug mode

Component: packages: standard

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21624

vbraun · 2016-10-21T07:03:05Z

comment:2

24524sage -t --long src/sage/algebras/free_algebra.py  # 4 doctests failed
24525sage -t --long src/sage/algebras/letterplace/free_algebra_element_letterplace.pyx  # 6 doctests failed
24526sage -t --long src/sage/algebras/letterplace/free_algebra_letterplace.pyx  # 2 doctests failed
24527sage -t --long src/sage/algebras/letterplace/letterplace_ideal.pyx  # 10 doctests failed
24528sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring.py  # 18 doctests failed
24529sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring_element.py  # 1 doctest failed
24530sage -t --long src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py  # 1 doctest failed

jpflori · 2016-10-28T12:25:13Z

comment:4

All of these errors look like:

    // ***dPolyReportError: NULL coef 
     occurred at
     occurred for poly: o*x*y*x_1*y_1*x_2
    // ***dPolyReportError: NULL coef 
     occurred at
     occurred for poly: o*y*x_1*y_1*x_2
    // ***dError: S_2_R[2]=1 != T[1].i_r=0
    -y*z*x - y*z*y - y*z*z

except for the last one:


File "src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py", line 108, in sage.schemes.curves.constructor.Curve
Failed example:
    C.genus()
Expected:
    13
Got:
    // ** no minpoly allowed if there are local objects belonging to the basering: 
    number((a2+a+1))
    // ** killing a local object due to minpoly change: p
    // ** no minpoly allowed if there are local objects belonging to the basering: 
    number((a2-a+1))
    // ** killing a local object due to minpoly change: p
    13

24528sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring.py # 18 doctests failed
24529sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring_element.py # 1 doctest failed
24530sage -t --long src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py # 1 doctest failed
}}}

jpflori · 2016-10-28T14:33:08Z

comment:5

Thread about first issue here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/libsingular-devel/TPZNlvZXei0

jpflori · 2016-10-31T13:19:08Z

comment:6

And the second one here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/libsingular-devel/tYuWlGOZdWo

vbraun · 2016-11-02T19:19:07Z

comment:7

With #21631 there are now also many

 // ***dError: assume violation at numbers.cc:426 condition: n->cfCoeffName!=ndCoeffName

warnings, though no crashes.

jpflori · 2016-11-03T11:21:42Z

comment:8

Can you tell in which file it is?

jpflori · 2016-11-03T12:19:32Z

comment:9

Ok, got it.

jpflori · 2016-12-21T13:50:12Z

comment:10

See ##21865 for new errors occurring only in debug mode in:

sage/rings/cfinite_sequence.py
sage/matrix/matrix_modn_dense_template.pxi

sagetrac-jakobkroeker · 2017-01-31T21:24:01Z

comment:11

the last issue ( "no minpoly allowed..") can be fixed with

Singular/Singular#814
(avoids intermediate object between ring declaration and minpoly definition in 'normal.lib')

Did you get answers from Hans for the other issues?
Or, could you track them down?

Replying to @jpflori:

All of these errors look like:

    // ***dPolyReportError: NULL coef 
     occurred at
     occurred for poly: o*x*y*x_1*y_1*x_2
    // ***dPolyReportError: NULL coef 
     occurred at
     occurred for poly: o*y*x_1*y_1*x_2
    // ***dError: S_2_R[2]=1 != T[1].i_r=0
    -y*z*x - y*z*y - y*z*z

except for the last one:


File "src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py", line 108, in sage.schemes.curves.constructor.Curve
Failed example:
    C.genus()
Expected:
    13
Got:
    // ** no minpoly allowed if there are local objects belonging to the basering: 
    number((a2+a+1))
    // ** killing a local object due to minpoly change: p
    // ** no minpoly allowed if there are local objects belonging to the basering: 
    number((a2-a+1))
    // ** killing a local object due to minpoly change: p
    13

24528sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring.py # 18 doctests failed
24529sage -t --long src/sage/rings/quotient_ring_element.py # 1 doctest failed
24530sage -t --long src/sage/schemes/curves/constructor.py # 1 doctest failed
}}}

sagetrac-jakobkroeker · 2017-01-31T21:47:52Z

comment:12

Replying to @vbraun:

With #21631 there are now also many
 // ***dError: assume violation at numbers.cc:426 condition: n->cfCoeffName!=ndCoeffName
warnings, though no crashes.

so changes in #21631 introduced a new issue?
Could someone track it down?

jpflori · 2017-02-01T13:06:55Z

comment:13

Replying to @sagetrac-jakobkroeker:

Replying to @vbraun:
With #21631 there are now also many
 // ***dError: assume violation at numbers.cc:426 condition: n->cfCoeffName!=ndCoeffName
warnings, though no crashes.
so changes in #21631 introduced a new issue?
Could someone track it down?

This has been fixed in Singular git version.

jpflori · 2017-02-01T13:10:40Z

comment:14

Replying to @sagetrac-jakobkroeker:

the last issue ( "no minpoly allowed..") can be fixed with

Singular/Singular#814
(avoids intermediate object between ring declaration and minpoly definition in 'normal.lib')

Good! It's even in Singular's git version now.

Did you get answers from Hans for the other issues?
Or, could you track them down?

Replying to @jpflori:
All of these errors look like:
     occurred at
     occurred for poly: o*y*x_1*y_1*x_2
    // ***dError: S_2_R[2]=1 != T[1].i_r=0
    -y*z*x - y*z*y - y*z*z

Those like this were still present last time I checked and those about stuff not being where it belongs through kTest_L and kTest_TS as mentioned here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/libsingular-devel/TPZNlvZXei0/CptSq0fdAgAJ
No feedback from Hans and I had no time to look at it.

sagetrac-jakobkroeker · 2017-02-01T17:11:00Z

comment:15

I just reminded Hans kindly to look at that issue since it is
a blocker ticket for sage.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/libsingular-devel/TPZNlvZXei0/CptSq0fdAgAJ

Let's see if something happens.

Replying to @jpflori:

Replying to @sagetrac-jakobkroeker:

the last issue ( "no minpoly allowed..") can be fixed with

Singular/Singular#814
(avoids intermediate object between ring declaration and minpoly definition in 'normal.lib')

Good! It's even in Singular's git version now.
Did you get answers from Hans for the other issues?
Or, could you track them down?

Replying to @jpflori:
All of these errors look like:
     occurred at
     occurred for poly: o*y*x_1*y_1*x_2
    // ***dError: S_2_R[2]=1 != T[1].i_r=0
    -y*z*x - y*z*y - y*z*z
Those like this were still present last time I checked and those about stuff not being where it belongs through kTest_L and kTest_TS as mentioned here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/libsingular-devel/TPZNlvZXei0/CptSq0fdAgAJ
No feedback from Hans and I had no time to look at it.

jpflori · 2017-02-21T10:46:24Z

comment:16

With the latest tarball for 4-1-0p2, debug mode should be clean:

http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/ftp/pub/Math/Singular/SOURCES/4-1-0/

sagetrac-jakobkroeker · 2017-03-08T00:58:24Z

comment:17

Replying to @jpflori:

With the latest tarball for 4-1-0p2, debug mode should be clean:

http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/ftp/pub/Math/Singular/SOURCES/4-1-0/

related singular commit is
Singular/Singular@54c80cb

sagetrac-jakobkroeker · 2017-03-08T01:10:35Z

comment:18

Replying to @jpflori:

Replying to @sagetrac-jakobkroeker:

the last issue ( "no minpoly allowed..") can be fixed with

Singular/Singular#814
(avoids intermediate object between ring declaration and minpoly definition in 'normal.lib')

Good! It's even in Singular's git version now.

There are much more issues in Singular LIBs where the minpoly is not immediately defined (and lead to debug output) which are probably not hit by current sage tests, but in the long term they have all to be fixed:
jakobkroeker/test_singular#243

embray · 2017-03-23T12:55:44Z

comment:19

I think I'm seeing this too. I almost always compile with SAGE_DEBUG=yes on Cygwin since I have to debug things so often, and I'm seeing lots of failures like this since the switch to Singular 4. Going to recompile Singular in non-debug mode to confirm that it goes away.

(Also obviously this isn't a blocker or it'd be fixed by now :)

embray · 2017-03-23T14:43:35Z

comment:20

Confirmed that rebuilding Singular and its dependents with SAGE_DEBUG=no fixed these failures for me.

jpflori · 2017-04-03T11:41:22Z

comment:21

@eric: does #22425 fixed the errors you saw?
I think we can close this one now #22425 is merged.

embray · 2017-04-03T12:02:47Z

comment:22

I don't think I've tried yet. I'll test it and see. Are you saying it should be fixed even with SAGE_DEBUG=yes?

jpflori · 2017-04-03T12:04:37Z

comment:23

All error messages specific to singular built in debug mode should not appear anymore.

jpflori · 2017-04-25T11:20:30Z

comment:24

Should be ok since the latest singular upgrade.

vbraun · 2017-04-25T17:36:43Z

comment:25

I'm still getting this one

sage -t --long src/sage/interfaces/singular.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/interfaces/singular.py", line 1523, in sage.interfaces.singular.SingularElement.sage_global_ring
Failed example:
    singular.eval('ring r5 = (complex,15,j),(a,b,c),dp')
Expected:
    ''
Got:
    '\n// ***dError: assume violation at numbers.cc:434 condition: n->cfCoeffName!=ndCoeffName'
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  22 in sage.interfaces.singular.SingularElement.sage_global_ring
    [390 tests, 1 failure, 10.81 s]

jpflori · 2017-04-25T17:39:17Z

comment:26

Maybe #22868.
Did not check debug mode there.

jpflori · 2017-04-26T08:49:45Z

comment:27

Unfortunately the failing test it is still here with 4.1.0p3.

jpflori · 2017-04-27T10:17:56Z

comment:28

Should be fixed in git version:

Singular/Singular@6af76a7

@volker: do you see any other failures?

vbraun · 2017-04-29T23:27:45Z

comment:29

These look a bit like they might be from Singular, haven't investigated further:

sage -t --long src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.py", line 1761, in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.?.interreduced_basis
Failed example:
    Ideal(P(0)).interreduced_basis()
Expected:
    [0]
Got:
    wrong mod p number 140727535500960 at modulop.cc,158
    [0]
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  13 in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_ideal.?.interreduced_basis
    [722 tests, 1 failure, 75.81 s]
sage -t --long src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_sequence.py
**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_sequence.py", line 1022, in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_sequence.PolynomialSequence_generic.reduced
Failed example:
    Sequence([P(0)]).reduced()
Expected:
    [0]
Got:
    wrong mod p number 140727535505680 at modulop.cc,158
    [0]
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of  17 in sage.rings.polynomial.multi_polynomial_sequence.PolynomialSequence_generic.reduced
    [235 tests, 1 failure, 14.47 s]

jpflori · 2017-05-02T09:44:22Z

comment:30

Error messages definitely from Singular, though it might be from bad input on Sage's side.

jpflori added this to the sage-7.4 milestone Oct 3, 2016

jpflori added c: packages: standard labels Oct 3, 2016

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

jdemeyer added p: blocker / 1 and removed p: major / 3 labels Oct 21, 2016

embray added p: major / 3 and removed p: blocker / 1 labels Mar 23, 2017

embray removed this from the sage-7.4 milestone Mar 23, 2017

jpflori added the s: needs review label Apr 25, 2017

vbraun added s: needs work and removed s: needs review labels Apr 25, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin mentioned this issue Dec 29, 2022

Meta ticket: follow-up tickets for upgrade to Singular4 #21632

Open

jpflori mentioned this issue Mar 27, 2017

Update Singular to 4.1.0p2 #22425

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Better debug mode for singular 4 #21624

Better debug mode for singular 4 #21624

jpflori commented Oct 3, 2016

This comment has been minimized.

vbraun commented Oct 21, 2016

jpflori commented Oct 28, 2016

jpflori commented Oct 28, 2016

jpflori commented Oct 31, 2016

vbraun commented Nov 2, 2016

jpflori commented Nov 3, 2016

jpflori commented Nov 3, 2016

jpflori commented Dec 21, 2016

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Jan 31, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Jan 31, 2017

jpflori commented Feb 1, 2017

jpflori commented Feb 1, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Feb 1, 2017

jpflori commented Feb 21, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Mar 8, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Mar 8, 2017

embray commented Mar 23, 2017

embray commented Mar 23, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 3, 2017

embray commented Apr 3, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 3, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 25, 2017

vbraun commented Apr 25, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 25, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 26, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 27, 2017

vbraun commented Apr 29, 2017

jpflori commented May 2, 2017

Better debug mode for singular 4 #21624

Better debug mode for singular 4 #21624

Comments

jpflori commented Oct 3, 2016

This comment has been minimized.

vbraun commented Oct 21, 2016

jpflori commented Oct 28, 2016

jpflori commented Oct 28, 2016

jpflori commented Oct 31, 2016

vbraun commented Nov 2, 2016

jpflori commented Nov 3, 2016

jpflori commented Nov 3, 2016

jpflori commented Dec 21, 2016

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Jan 31, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Jan 31, 2017

jpflori commented Feb 1, 2017

jpflori commented Feb 1, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Feb 1, 2017

jpflori commented Feb 21, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Mar 8, 2017

sagetrac-jakobkroeker mannequin commented Mar 8, 2017

embray commented Mar 23, 2017

embray commented Mar 23, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 3, 2017

embray commented Apr 3, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 3, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 25, 2017

vbraun commented Apr 25, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 25, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 26, 2017

jpflori commented Apr 27, 2017

vbraun commented Apr 29, 2017

jpflori commented May 2, 2017