On Feb 6, 2010, at 4:28 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 03:21:54AM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
It was just pure luck that it ever worked on any system... I agree
that an exception would be prettier, but the same parent => avoid
typechecks is an important optimization, esp
On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 03:21:54AM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> It was just pure luck that it ever worked on any system... I agree
> that an exception would be prettier, but the same parent => avoid
> typechecks is an important optimization, especially for arithmetic
> of basic types.
>
> >Just
On Feb 6, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
Hi Craig!
Thanks for investigating this in detail!
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:44:59AM -0800, Craig Citro wrote:
Yep, using ZZ as a parent for something which isn't of class
sage.rings.integer.Integer is what was causing the segfault
Hi Craig!
Thanks for investigating this in detail!
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 02:44:59AM -0800, Craig Citro wrote:
> Yep, using ZZ as a parent for something which isn't of class
> sage.rings.integer.Integer is what was causing the segfault here.
> There's actually a bit more to the story --
On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:44 AM, Craig Citro wrote:
If this is confirmed, I don't mind using a more sane parent for the
tests. On the other hand, getting a segfault with an (admittedly ill)
piece of pure Python code is not good. Could any expert of the
arcanes
of Integer comparison have a look?
> If this is confirmed, I don't mind using a more sane parent for the
> tests. On the other hand, getting a segfault with an (admittedly ill)
> piece of pure Python code is not good. Could any expert of the arcanes
> of Integer comparison have a look?
>
Yep, using ZZ as a parent for something whic
