Ilya Zakharevich on Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:31:06 -0700

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: yet another rnfkummer() posting

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Karim BELABAS wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Igor Schein wrote:
> > This one is gone now, but here's a different one:
> >
> > ? bnfisnorm(bnfinit(polsubcyclo(7,3)),[[;]]);
> >   ***   bug in GP (Segmentation Fault), please report
> >
> > Stable version doesn't segfault.
> 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.