On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:01 PM, John Cremona<john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Built fine and passed all tests on 64-bit Ubuntu. > > Built fine, 2 test failyres on 32-bit Suse: the singular.pyx issue > already reported, and > > ********************************************************************** > File > "/local/jec/sage-4.0.2.rc0/devel/sage/sage/rings/number_field/number_field_element.pyx", > line 2092: > sage: [L(6).valuation(P) for P in L.primes_above(6)] > Expected: > [2, 2, 4] > Got: > [4, 2, 2] > ********************************************************************** > > That is on old issue: L.primes_above(6) tries to sort the primes but > there are tie-break situations where the order is not determined; and > pari's output is often different on 32-or 64-bit machines. Unless > someone can come up with a reliable way of sorting primes in a number > field (currently "sorted by residue degree first, then by > underlying prime (or equivalently, by norm).") this doctest > should be changed so as not to depend on the order. > > John
Thanks. This is now: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6303 By the way, Nick Alexander just got very busy and release management for sage-4.0.2 has switched from Craig + Nick to Craig + William(=me) for the finish. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
