On Aug 29, 1:19 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 9:50 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> William did suggest a fix but he either didn't code it up and merge it
> or it somehow got lost. We should open an individual ticket for that
> one because it just bleeds RAM like a stuck pig.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
Okay, I have opened ticket #511 and created a patch from William's
suggestion:
Without the patch:
==22784== LEAK SUMMARY:
==22784== definitely lost: 794,838 bytes in 65,475 blocks.
==22784== possibly lost: 350,158 bytes in 953 blocks.
==22784== still reachable: 137,588,639 bytes in 19,728 blocks.
==22784== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
With the patch:
==22993== LEAK SUMMARY:
==22993== definitely lost: 3,103 bytes in 49 blocks.
==22993== possibly lost: 349,334 bytes in 931 blocks.
==22993== still reachable: 137,589,847 bytes in 19,621 blocks.
==22993== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
All the details and a link to the patch are in ticket #511.
Ifti, it would be great if you could verify that the result is still
correct. I am about to rerun the doctests, but I am not sure what will
turn up because according to Wiliam there were failling doctests
before. On top of that we can also start looking into additional
problems with that particular computation if you are interested.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
