New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fixing c++ issues in eclib #22711
Comments
Changed branch from u/dimpase/cxx_eclib to u/dimpase/cxx_ecl |
Commit: |
New commits:
|
comment:2
Please have a look. This is a very straightfoward change, basically just following meaningful warnings emitted by clang++. |
Upstream: Reported upstream. No feedback yet. |
comment:3
John, it seems that a large part of it is already in your https://github.com/JohnCremona/eclib Perhaps you can just pick what's not yet there from the patch, and make a new release... |
comment:4
OK perhaps, but not until next week. I am very receptive to pull requests into eclib. I am strongly opposed to patching eclib for Sage independently of that. Note also that there has been a new release of eclib for several weeks waiting for a positive review --jdemeyer got close but then it got forgotten. Please change the "no feedback yet" tag -- this is feedback. |
comment:5
|
comment:7
That's good, I missed that had happened 3 days ago. |
comment:8
OK, let me see if this patch adds anything to what's already done on #22164. |
comment:9
The patch here catches one more missing So these absolutely must be fixed. There is also some more, regarding shifting negative values (undefined behavour in C++). For the latter, I haven't done the complete job---it appears to be still working without it. Let's complete this fixing, cause it's just trouble in waiting to hit after a compiler update... |
Dependencies: #22164 |
comment:10
Thank you very much for checking this. COuld you possibly make a pull request into eclib for the critical changes? I just checked that the code in Sage (after #22164) exactly matches my own current branch (i.e. I have done no more work on eclib since then), and I agree with the two fixes you have identified. It is not impossible that I could make a bugfix release soon with those two changes. Can you give one example of where the code shifts negative values? |
comment:11
I have a version 20170330 with the two fixes in and an increment to the library version. I can push that now to https://github.com/JohnCremona/eclib or add some more -- I have time to make these edits but not to go searching for things a compiler I don't have picks up. |
comment:12
Replying to @JohnCremona:
Will do. For the master branch, right?
in the diff fragment below
This matches one from ratpoints I fixed some time ago. But there are more, hopefully equally unambiguous. It's more problematic if you do |
comment:13
Replying to @dimpase:
Hold off since I have already fixed the two specific things you mentioned.
That's unfortunate -- this code was adapted from a (now very old) version of ratpoints, and that sort of macro is not my style at all.
I am not sure what to do next, so I will push the changes I already made to github. |
comment:14
I also have a new eclib-20170330.tar.bz2 ready to post if we make no more code changes, or I can remake it if we do. |
comment:16
Replying to @dimpase:
OK I will do that. Without a further increase in version number since I have not distributed that tarball yet. |
comment:17
Done. The extra fix is now in the master at github and the new distribution file is at http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/J.E.Cremona/ftp/eclib-20170330.tar.bz2 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:20
in case, I can't access the new tarball:
|
comment:21
Replying to @dimpase:
Sorry, fixed now. |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Changed upstream from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to None of the above - read trac for reasoning. |
comment:25
This branch should be based on #22164. |
Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer |
comment:26
... and #22164 is now in 8.0.beta0. |
Changed dependencies from #22164 to none |
comment:27
Replying to @JohnCremona:
Right. So it needs to be rebased on that. |
comment:28
But note that the original patch / branch posted here by dimpase is no longer needed since it consisted of patches to eclib which have been fixed upstream; so all that is needed here is a trivial new branch to refer to the new eclib version. I will do that now (where "now" = "as soon as I have built 8.0.beta0"). |
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
|
comment:30
Here cometh the rebased branch. |
comment:31
Fantastic. I will test your branch on my newly built 8.0beta0 and report back. I hope it will not be seen as a conflict of interest for me to review this! |
comment:32
Replying to @JohnCremona:
You know, the Permanent Committee of Sagemath Bugs might have an issue with this, and launch an inquiry... |
comment:33
Replying to @dimpase:
Now which country did you grow up in, I seem to have forgotten? Running ptestlong gives only these:
none of w3hich are related to eclib -- and it's a beta release which I had not tested with the old eclib. |
comment:34
Replying to @JohnCremona:
Let me assure you that I grew up listening to BBC :-) |
Changed branch from u/dimpase/cxx_ecl to |
clang++
refuses to guess the correctreturn
statement. Also,delete[]
must not be mixed up withdelete
. This ticket fixes these issues, and allows #22679 to go forward.The tarball at http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/J.E.Cremona/ftp/eclib-20170330.tar.bz2
Upstream: None of the above - read trac for reasoning.
CC: @kiwifb @JohnCremona @jdemeyer
Component: packages: standard
Author: Dima Pasechnik
Branch/Commit:
4d2f8db
Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22711
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: