On Thursday, May 2, 2024 at 8:54:58 AM UTC+9 Nils Bruin wrote:
... I'd expect that performance can be significantly improved by optimizing
the sage code.
Exactly. It is related with
sage: time bool(x == 0.1)
CPU times: user 1.47 s, sys: 133 ms, total: 1.6 s
Wall time: 1.14 s
False
Fixed
Moreover, this case seems to spur the need to introduce timing tests to
watch out regressions in code performance without a failure.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it
On Thu, 2024-05-02 at 02:13 -0700, Kwankyu Lee wrote:
> Moreover, this case seems to spur the need to introduce timing tests to
> watch out regressions in code performance without a failure.
>
Shameless plug:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36226
I see these regressions (old hardware)
giac has a wasm version, that support factoring over Q, Q[extension],
approx real, approx complex, Z/pZ and GF(p,n). Example:
[url=https://www-fourier.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/%7eparisse/xcasen.html#exec&filename=%40session&python=1&radian=1&cas=0,0,factor(x%5E4%2B4)&cas=0,200,factor(x%5E4%2B4%2Ci)&
