|Bill Allombert on Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:40:53 +0200|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: yet another rnfkummer() posting|
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:31:06PM -0700, Ilya Zakharevich wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Karim BELABAS wrote: > > Yet another typo. Are we done with regressions now ? I'd like to release a > > snapshot ASAP. > > BTW, can you check with Math::Pari before release(s)? It would > immediately report the mismatches in the signature (when the string > signature is changed to "a complicated one", but the numeric one is > not changed to 99). > > Unfortunately, the current version does not report the function *names*, only suspicious signatures. >>TODO. I have completly get rid of signatures in the description system. Instead I use a perl script that compute signatures. This is imbedded in the make_proto822.pl script. Some of the function with prototype "GL" have valence 21, some others valence 23. I suppose it is a bug in init.c Could you check the script ? The only mandatory rule for PARI/GP are: * Currently the following functions have no code word: * 'O' 50, 'if' 80, 'until' 82, 'while' 81, 'global' 88, * * Valence 0 reserved for functions without mandatory args. * Valence 99 reserved for codes which do not correspond 1-to-1 to valences. * Any other valence (what to do with 0?) should correspond to exactly * one code. So you can change the other valence as you want them. Cheers, Bill.