Skip to content
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

Replace lcalc by PARI #24532

Closed
jdemeyer opened this issue Jan 12, 2018 · 7 comments
Closed

Replace lcalc by PARI #24532

jdemeyer opened this issue Jan 12, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@jdemeyer
Copy link

CC: @embray

Component: packages: standard

Branch/Commit: u/jdemeyer/replace_lcalc_by_pari @ 57769fa

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24532

@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

comment:2

Tests are showing that (at least for some use cases) PARI is slower than lcalc. Part of the reason is that lcalc has optimizations for specific L-functions while PARI works in much larger generality.

So replacing lcalc is a bad idea.

@jdemeyer jdemeyer removed this from the sage-8.2 milestone Jan 15, 2018
@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

Branch: u/jdemeyer/replace_lcalc_by_pari

@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

Commit: 57769fa

@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

comment:4

I'm still pushing the branch in case somebody wants to play with it.


New commits:

57769faDeprecate lcalc; use PARI instead

@kiwifb
Copy link
Member

kiwifb commented Jan 15, 2018

comment:5

That's a shame. lcalc will probably become a higher and higher maintenance cost in the future - unless upstream lcalc pick up maintenance again.

@embray
Copy link
Contributor

embray commented Jan 16, 2018

comment:6

I don't know how lcalc works at all, but maybe said optimizations can be ported upstream to PARI?

@jdemeyer
Copy link
Author

comment:7

lcalc is not a trivial package :-) The PARI developers are aware of lcalc and what it does. So, if it would be easy, they would already have done it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants