Upgrade to pari-2.11 #25567

See the attached file which crashes using 8.1's pari version. Testing suggests that this will be OK in 2.10.0.alpha, and this should be verified before this ticket is merged.

New commits:

`9ed413d`	`Upgrade to pari-2.10.0.alpha`

sagetrac-git · 2018-06-13T10:15:11Z

Changed commit from 9ed413d to 68662b1

sagetrac-git · 2018-06-13T10:15:11Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`68662b1`	`Fix doctests for PARI/GP upgrade`

jdemeyer · 2018-06-13T10:25:02Z

comment:6

Replying to @JohnCremona:

See the attached file which crashes using 8.1's pari version. Testing suggests that this will be OK in 2.10.0.alpha, and this should be verified before this ticket is merged.

I'm not sure whether you would propose to add it as doctest, but I'd rather not since it takes quite a long time.

JohnCremona · 2018-06-13T11:38:42Z

comment:7

Replying to @jdemeyer:

Replying to @JohnCremona:

See the attached file which crashes using 8.1's pari version. Testing suggests that this will be OK in 2.10.0.alpha, and this should be verified before this ticket is merged.

I'm not sure whether you would propose to add it as doctest, but I'd rather not since it takes quite a long time.

No, I agree. But at least we could have an assertion on this ticket that it works, so that whoever reviews the ticket (or me) can test it manually.

jdemeyer · 2018-06-13T13:08:07Z

Upstream: Reported upstream. No feedback yet.

jdemeyer · 2018-06-13T13:08:07Z

comment:8

Thanks to a Sage doctest, I found a genuine bug in the new PARI. So we'll need to wait for this to be fixed before we can proceed.

JohnCremona · 2018-06-13T13:17:16Z

comment:9

I could not find pari bug 2055, but 2054 is possibly similar?

jdemeyer · 2018-06-13T13:24:45Z

comment:10

Replying to @JohnCremona:

I could not find pari bug 2055

It should be there now. Their bug tracker sometimes takes a few minutes to update.

sagetrac-git · 2018-06-13T14:43:44Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

`b6cf1e7`	`Upgrade to pari-2.10.0.alpha`
`e8cd3ab`	`Fix doctests for PARI/GP upgrade`

sagetrac-git · 2018-06-13T14:43:44Z

Changed commit from 68662b1 to e8cd3ab

sagetrac-git · 2018-06-13T14:57:14Z

Changed commit from e8cd3ab to cceabac

sagetrac-git · 2018-06-13T14:57:14Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

`a9f42a2`	`Upgrade to pari-2.10.0.alpha`
`cceabac`	`Fix doctests for PARI/GP upgrade`

jdemeyer · 2018-06-13T14:58:50Z

comment:16

So I ran all doctests and found 3 independent new bugs in PARI. One was already fixed in master, I reported two and one of those is already fixed. So this ticket is essentially "needs review" modulo the elleta issue.

sagetrac-git · 2018-06-14T08:55:24Z

Changed commit from cceabac to a62587a

sagetrac-git · 2018-06-14T08:55:24Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

`72d7ba3`	`Upgrade to pari-2.10.0.alpha`
`a62587a`	`Fix doctests for PARI/GP upgrade`

jdemeyer · 2018-06-14T08:57:07Z

Changed upstream from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to Fixed upstream, but not in a stable release.

jdemeyer · 2018-08-07T14:41:25Z

comment:61

Replying to @vbraun:

FWIW the testsuite fails on kucalc (linux 64-bit):
* Testing galpol           gp-sta..BUG [2116]   gp-dyn..BUG [2220]   

Fixed by #26010.

jdemeyer · 2018-08-07T14:41:55Z

comment:62

Replying to @vbraun:

Pretty sure this is due to pari on 32-bit linux:

Fixed by adding some doctest tolerance.

sagetrac-git · 2018-08-07T14:47:36Z

Changed commit from e7b4a37 to 9e1419f

sagetrac-git · 2018-08-07T14:47:36Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

`197cabb`	`Split database_pari`
`1c1f18d`	`Upgrade to pari-2.11.0`
`9e1419f`	`Fix doctests for PARI/GP upgrade`

sagetrac-git · 2018-08-07T15:18:27Z

Changed commit from 9e1419f to 6969b74

sagetrac-git · 2018-08-07T15:18:27Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

`6969b74`	`Add giac patch for PARI 2.11`

jdemeyer · 2018-08-20T10:46:09Z

comment:66

Ping? It would be nice to review this again. I recall that it had positive_review before. So this would need reviewing the dependency #26010 and the few added commits.

sagetrac-git · 2018-08-22T15:04:35Z

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

`1b3371c`	`PARI databases have no dependencies`
`21ba754`	`Add giac patch for PARI 2.11`
`36574c3`	`Upgrade to pari-2.11.0`
`739f7a6`	`Fix doctests for PARI/GP upgrade`

sagetrac-git · 2018-08-22T15:04:35Z

Changed commit from 6969b74 to 739f7a6

jdemeyer · 2018-08-22T15:07:29Z

comment:68

Rebased to latest version of #26010.

vbraun · 2018-08-26T09:37:59Z

Changed branch from u/jdemeyer/upgrade_to_pari_2_10_0_alpha to 739f7a6

JohnCremona · 2018-09-07T08:29:56Z

Changed commit from 739f7a6 to none

JohnCremona · 2018-09-07T08:29:56Z

comment:71

Since the release of 2.11 there have been several bug-fixes which are important for my current work. Some of the new mf* functions crash on 2.11.0 but run fine with the current development commit. What I am currently doing is building this development gp executable outside Sage and manually changing the link SAGE_ROOT/local/bin/gp to point to that. (My code is only using gp.eval(), not Pari library functions.

Is there a better way?
Is the version going to be updated regularly to the current development version of pari?

kiwifb · 2018-09-07T08:36:17Z

comment:72

Replying to @JohnCremona:

Since the release of 2.11 there have been several bug-fixes which are important for my current work. Some of the new mf* functions crash on 2.11.0 but run fine with the current development commit. What I am currently doing is building this development gp executable outside Sage and manually changing the link SAGE_ROOT/local/bin/gp to point to that. (My code is only using gp.eval(), not Pari library functions.

Is there a better way?

As far as I can say that's quick and slightly dirty but probably not too much. I think the best way would be for your code to look for a variable, say GP_EXEC, and use its value as the gp executable if it exists. You can then put that in your environment and only your code is ever affected and you don't need to mess up with the link.

JohnCremona · 2018-09-07T09:04:47Z

comment:73

I thought of something like that but the Gp() constructor for a new gp interpreter does not allow the user to specify the interpreter's path explicitly. It calls Expect.__init__ with
command="gp --fast --emacs --quiet --stacksize %s"%stacksize
so that relies on picking up gp from Sage's path.

Am I missing something? I am using a personal Sage build rather than messing with the system-wide one.

timokau · 2018-09-07T09:28:17Z

comment:74

Replying to @JohnCremona:

Since the release of 2.11 there have been several bug-fixes which are important for my current work. Some of the new mf* functions crash on 2.11.0 but run fine with the current development commit. What I am currently doing is building this development gp executable outside Sage and manually changing the link SAGE_ROOT/local/bin/gp to point to that. (My code is only using gp.eval(), not Pari library functions.

Is there a better way?

sage sets its PATH in sage-env. After setting that it sources ~/.sage/sagerc if available. So if you create that file with the following contents:

export PATH="<insert path to local build of gp here>/bin:$PATH"

sage should pick up your gp since it is first in PATH.

Is the version going to be updated regularly to the current development version of pari?

I don't think that is a good idea. Development versions are not for "production" use. Instead you could ask upstream for a release or suggest to them to release bugfixes in point releases.

timokau · 2018-09-07T09:29:29Z

comment:75

In the long run you may also be interested in #24919.

JohnCremona · 2018-09-07T10:19:46Z

comment:76

Thanks for the suggestion in 1 which is certainly cleaner than whan I was doing. As for 2, it is a matter of terminology what is production and what is testing. The work I am doing is effectively a massive test of the new modular forms functionality in Pari/GP, and I am finding bugs which upstream Pari is fixing. But I am doing the testing using calls from Sage since using gp itself is much harder, especially when I get to compare the results with the output of a different package (hint: one of the 3 Ms).

Of course that is not to say that Sage should be repeatedly changing to the latest pari commit; however pari releases come around rather too infrequently.

timokau · 2018-09-07T10:45:48Z

comment:77

Replying to @JohnCremona:

Thanks for the suggestion in 1 which is certainly cleaner than whan I was doing. As for 2, it is a matter of terminology what is production and what is testing. The work I am doing is effectively a massive test of the new modular forms functionality in Pari/GP, and I am finding bugs which upstream Pari is fixing. But I am doing the testing using calls from Sage since using gp itself is much harder, especially when I get to compare the results with the output of a different package (hint: one of the 3 Ms).

In that case the current solution or one through #24919 is probably best.

Of course that is not to say that Sage should be repeatedly changing to the latest pari commit; however pari releases come around rather too infrequently.

Yes that is true. But if there is something upstream we need, we should at least ask them for a release before deciding to just fetch some unstable commit.

jdemeyer · 2018-09-07T14:21:37Z

comment:78

Replying to @timokau:

Yes that is true. But if there is something upstream we need, we should at least ask them for a release before deciding to just fetch some unstable commit.

We can ask, but it probably won't happen just because we ask.

timokau · 2018-09-07T15:24:06Z

comment:79

We should still ask. Even if it doesn't happen, they may have good reasons for that and explain them.

JohnCremona · 2018-09-07T15:31:07Z

comment:80

Bother @jdemeyer and I are in regular contact with the Pari developers anyway.

timokau · 2018-09-07T15:42:52Z

comment:81

Having the reasons public would be better. Some explanation why the state of that particular comment is good enough for sage but not good enough for pari's upstream.

All that is hypothetical in the case that pari adds important features that we need in sage and they refuse to make a release including them in reasonable time. As far as I understand, that is not the case yet.

jdemeyer · 2018-09-07T18:48:07Z

comment:82

Replying to @timokau:

All that is hypothetical in the case that pari adds important features that we need in sage and they refuse to make a release including them in reasonable time. As far as I understand, that is not the case yet.

It's not the case yet, but judging from past experiences, this is likely to happen.

jdemeyer added this to the sage-8.3 milestone Jun 12, 2018

jdemeyer added c: packages: standard labels Jun 12, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

jdemeyer added the s: needs review label Jun 14, 2018

jdemeyer added s: needs review and removed s: needs work labels Aug 7, 2018

vbraun added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Aug 22, 2018

vbraun removed the s: positive review label Aug 26, 2018

vbraun closed this as completed in 310d396 Aug 26, 2018

Upgrade to pari-2.11 #25567

Upgrade to pari-2.11 #25567

Comments

jdemeyer commented Jun 12, 2018

jdemeyer commented Jun 13, 2018

JohnCremona commented Jun 13, 2018

JohnCremona commented Jun 13, 2018

JohnCremona commented Jun 13, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 13, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 13, 2018

jdemeyer commented Jun 13, 2018

JohnCremona commented Jun 13, 2018

jdemeyer commented Jun 13, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

jdemeyer commented Jun 13, 2018

JohnCremona commented Jun 13, 2018

jdemeyer commented Jun 13, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 13, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 13, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 13, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 13, 2018

jdemeyer commented Jun 13, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 14, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 14, 2018

This comment has been minimized.

jdemeyer commented Jun 14, 2018

jdemeyer commented Aug 7, 2018

jdemeyer commented Aug 7, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Aug 7, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Aug 7, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Aug 7, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Aug 7, 2018

jdemeyer commented Aug 20, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Aug 22, 2018

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Aug 22, 2018

jdemeyer commented Aug 22, 2018

vbraun commented Aug 26, 2018

JohnCremona commented Sep 7, 2018

JohnCremona commented Sep 7, 2018

kiwifb commented Sep 7, 2018

JohnCremona commented Sep 7, 2018

timokau commented Sep 7, 2018

timokau commented Sep 7, 2018

JohnCremona commented Sep 7, 2018

timokau commented Sep 7, 2018

jdemeyer commented Sep 7, 2018

timokau commented Sep 7, 2018

JohnCremona commented Sep 7, 2018

timokau commented Sep 7, 2018

jdemeyer commented Sep 7, 2018