Hi Robert, On 2012-11-05, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1. I've always been meaning to get back to this for ages, but just > haven't found the time. If we're going to make a big push to get this > in, I'll do what I can to help.
I'd appreciate your support! > For testing, I would propose we manually insert gc operations > periodically to see if we can reproduce the failures more frequently. How can one insert gc operations? You mean, by inserting gc.collect() into doctests, or by manipulating the Python call hook? > We could then marks some (hopefully a very small number) parents as > "unsafe to garbage collect" and go forward with this patch, holding > hard references to all "unsafe" parents to look into them later (which > isn't a regression). That actually was what we tried: There was some bug that has only occurred on bsd.math, and could be fixed by keeping a strong cache for polynomial rings (which is inacceptable for my own project, but which is at least no regression). Anyway. I did not look into the new problems yet. If it is (again) about libsingular polynomial rings, then I think we should really make an effort to get reference counting for libsingular rings right. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
