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

Upgrade Arb to 2.18.1 #28623

Closed
fredrik-johansson opened this issue Oct 17, 2019 · 78 comments
Closed

Upgrade Arb to 2.18.1 #28623

fredrik-johansson opened this issue Oct 17, 2019 · 78 comments

Comments

@fredrik-johansson
Copy link

http://arblib.org/history.html#history

adds support for FLINT 2.6 (#29719)

tarball: See checksums.ini [upstream_url]

CC: @mezzarobba @videlec @kiwifb @antonio-rojas

Component: packages: standard

Author: Matthias Koeppe, Dima Pasechnik

Branch/Commit: 0c9c4ed

Reviewer: Dima Pasechnik, Matthias Koeppe

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28623

@embray
Copy link
Contributor

embray commented Jan 6, 2020

comment:2

Ticket retargeted after milestone closed

@embray embray modified the milestones: sage-9.0, sage-9.1 Jan 6, 2020
@mkoeppe mkoeppe modified the milestones: sage-9.1, sage-9.2 Apr 24, 2020
@mkoeppe

This comment has been minimized.

@mkoeppe mkoeppe changed the title Upgrade Arb to 2.17.0 Upgrade Arb to 2.18.0 Jun 14, 2020
@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Jun 14, 2020

Branch: u/mkoeppe/upgrade_arb_to_2_18_0

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Jun 14, 2020

Author: Matthias Koeppe

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Jun 14, 2020

New commits:

f9be33abuild/pkgs/arb: Update to 2.18.0
e7a25cbbuild/pkgs/arb/patches/silence-stderr-exponent-too-large.patch: Remove

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Jun 14, 2020

Commit: e7a25cb

@mkoeppe

This comment has been minimized.

@timokau
Copy link
Contributor

timokau commented Jun 15, 2020

comment:9

Have you run the testsuite? I just tried to do the update for sage in nixpkgs. We're still on sage 8.9, but I expect the failures would be the same with the current develop branch as the tests are still the same. Most of the test failures are due to precision improvements, but two (the nans) look like regressions:

sage -t --long /nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx
**********************************************************************
File "/nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx", line 4510, in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_pi
Failed example:
    CBF(2,3).elliptic_pi(CBF(1,1))
Expected:
    [0.27029997361983 +/- ...e-15] + [0.715676058329095 +/- ...e-16]*I
Got:
    [0.2702999736198 +/- 4.51e-14] + [0.7156760583291 +/- 1.78e-14]*I
**********************************************************************
File "/nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx", line 4618, in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_pi_inc
Failed example:
    n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m)
Expected:
    [0.8934793755173 +/- ...e-14] + [0.95707868710750 +/- ...e-15]*I
Got:
    nan + nan*I
**********************************************************************
File "/nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx", line 4620, in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_pi_inc
Failed example:
    n.elliptic_pi(m)
Expected:
    [0.89347937551733 +/- ...e-15] + [0.95707868710750 +/- ...e-15]*I
Got:
    [0.8934793755173 +/- 4.27e-14] + [0.9570786871075 +/- 9.91e-15]*I
**********************************************************************
File "/nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx", line 4625, in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_pi_inc
Failed example:
    n.elliptic_pi_inc(CBF.pi()/2, m)
Expected:
    [0.2969588746419 +/- ...e-14] + [1.3188795332738 +/- ...e-14]*I
Got:
    nan + nan*I
**********************************************************************
File "/nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx", line 4627, in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_pi_inc
Failed example:
    n.elliptic_pi(m)
Expected:
    [0.29695887464189 +/- ...e-15] + [1.31887953327376 +/- ...e-15]*I
Got:
    [0.2969588746419 +/- 3.79e-14] + [1.3188795332738 +/- 7.19e-14]*I
**********************************************************************
File "/nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/complex_arb.pyx", line 4703, in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_rj
Failed example:
    CBF(0,1).elliptic_rj(CBF(-1/2,1), CBF(-1,-1), CBF(2))
Expected:
    [1.004386756285733 +/- ...e-16] + [-0.2451626834391645 +/- ...e-17]*I
Got:
    [1.00438675628573 +/- 6.85e-15] + [-0.24516268343916 +/- 8.11e-15]*I
**********************************************************************
3 items had failures:
   1 of   2 in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_pi
   4 of  10 in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_pi_inc
   1 of   2 in sage.rings.complex_arb.ComplexBall.elliptic_rj
    [637 tests, 6 failures, 7.92 s]
File "/nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx", line 295, in sage.rings.real_arb.arb_to_mpfi
Failed example:
    RIF(RBF(2)**(2**100)) # indirect doctest
Expected:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
    ...
    ArithmeticError: Error converting arb to mpfi. Overflow?
Got:
    [5.8756537891115869e1388255822130839282 .. +infinity]
**********************************************************************
File "/nix/store/6dnh3dcsfmj8akrifqy95wd57sfnprp6-sage-src-8.9/src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx", line 1657, in sage.rings.real_arb.RealBall.mid
Failed example:
    b.mid()
Expected:
    Traceback (most recent call last):
    ...
    RuntimeError: unable to convert to MPFR (exponent out of range?)
Got:
    +infinity
**********************************************************************
2 items had failures:
   1 of   7 in sage.rings.real_arb.RealBall.mid
   1 of   2 in sage.rings.real_arb.arb_to_mpfi
    [539 tests, 2 failures, 0.71 s]

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Jun 16, 2020

comment:11

I don't see these arb errors if I update flint to 2.6 in lockstep with arb.

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Jun 16, 2020

Reviewer: Dima Pasechnik

@timokau
Copy link
Contributor

timokau commented Jun 16, 2020

comment:12

I get the same errors if I update flint as well, but if you're not seeing them that could also be caused by some other dependency / version difference of sage on nix.

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Jun 16, 2020

comment:13

our flint 2.6.0 update ticket has patches, did you use them?

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Jun 16, 2020

comment:14

Replying to @dimpase:

I don't see these arb errors if I update flint to 2.6 in lockstep with arb.

Perhaps then this ticket should depend on the FLINT ticket, not the other way around; or we should close this one and use #29719 for both updates.

@timokau
Copy link
Contributor

timokau commented Jun 16, 2020

comment:15

Replying to @dimpase:

our flint 2.6.0 update ticket has patches, did you use them?

No, but I don't see any relevant patches either. Only 0001-Makefile.in-macos-Do-not-make-DESTDIR-part-of-instal.patch was added, which is both MacOS and buildsystem specific.

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Jun 22, 2020

comment:16

some needed for doctests patches for arb are on #29719. Sorry for mess.

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Jun 22, 2020

Dependencies: #29719

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Nov 25, 2020

Changed commit from d6838a1 to 9515c6d

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Nov 25, 2020

Changed reviewer from Dima Pasechnik, ... to Dima Pasechnik

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Nov 25, 2020

comment:56

it all works just fine.


New commits:

0a99383build/pkgs/arb/patches/[flint.. silence-stderr-exponent-too-large].patch: Remove
e4005b1update to 2.18.1
9515c6dremove old workaround

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Dec 4, 2020

comment:57

On 32-bit:

**********************************************************************
File "src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx", line 300, in sage.rings.real_arb.arb_to_mpfi
Failed example:
    RIF(RBF(2)**(2**100)) # arb218 # indirect doctest
Expected:
    [5.8756537891115869e1388255822130839282 .. +infinity]
Got:
    [2.0985787164673874e323228496 .. +infinity]
**********************************************************************
1 item had failures:
   1 of   2 in sage.rings.real_arb.arb_to_mpfi
    [546 tests, 1 failure, 0.37 s]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
sage -t --long --random-seed=0 src/sage/rings/real_arb.pyx  # 1 doctest failed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Dec 7, 2020

New commits:

62fee73build/pkgs/arb/patches/[flint.. silence-stderr-exponent-too-large].patch: Remove
bf63df7update to 2.18.1
1120656remove old workaround
0ce02a2add 64/32-bit tags and results

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Dec 7, 2020

Changed commit from 9515c6d to 0ce02a2

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Dec 7, 2020

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Dec 7, 2020

comment:59

rebased over the latest beta and added tags. Please test on 32 bits in particular

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Dec 7, 2020

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

4e5e12dadd missing dots

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Dec 7, 2020

Changed commit from 0ce02a2 to 4e5e12d

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Dec 7, 2020

comment:61

passes all the tests on 32-bit now

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Dec 7, 2020

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

0c9c4edcorrect the tags placement, add dots

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Dec 7, 2020

Changed commit from 4e5e12d to 0c9c4ed

@dimpase
Copy link
Member

dimpase commented Dec 7, 2020

comment:63

duh, now it's finally right, passes both on 32 and 64 bits.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Dec 8, 2020

Changed reviewer from Dima Pasechnik to Dima Pasechnik, Matthias Koeppe

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Member

mkoeppe commented Dec 8, 2020

comment:64

LGTM

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Dec 13, 2020

Changed branch from u/dimpase/upgrade_arb_to_2_18_1 to 0c9c4ed

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

9 participants