1. Why are we using an old version of SBCL when 2.3.7 has already been released? 2. Working on Intel i7-3520M, Segmentation fault (core dumped) on AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS Reproducible: Always
We need to update SBCL to solve the problem with AMD * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229504 * https://www.sbcl.org/platform-table.html
I have locally built Maxima 5.47.0 with sbcl 2.3.7 and tested it on CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS, everything works and does not crash. Spec files for Maxima, sbcl, and wxMaxima are available at the link: https://ilgrad.fedorapeople.org/specs/ Also, some patches for Maxima are no longer relevant.
I would like to add that the currently old maxima version shipped with Fedora 38, Fedora 39, Fedora Rawhide has a bug in computing simple determinants even for 4x4 matrices. This is very annoying because this causes sometimes some sign error. The bug is fixed for versions 5.47.0 and newer. I have added some pointers here for the relevant discussion. https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/58722569/ https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/58722577/ Please update the maxima packages. Best Regards Andre
(In reply to a3emdot from comment #4) > I would like to add that the currently old maxima version shipped with > Fedora 38, Fedora 39, Fedora Rawhide > has a bug in computing simple determinants even for 4x4 matrices. > This is very annoying because this causes sometimes some sign error. > The bug is fixed for versions 5.47.0 and newer. > > I have added some pointers here for the relevant discussion. > https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/58722569/ > https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/58722577/ > > Please update the maxima packages. > > Best Regards > Andre Hi Andre, I support the latest versions, if you are comfortable using them (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ilgrad/maxima/)
(In reply to Ilia Gradina from comment #5) > > Hi Andre, I support the latest versions, if you are comfortable using them > (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ilgrad/maxima/) @Ilia: What are the changes in your spec? Just an update of the sources or are there other changes?
(In reply to José Matos from comment #6) > (In reply to Ilia Gradina from comment #5) > > > > Hi Andre, I support the latest versions, if you are comfortable using them > > (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ilgrad/maxima/) > > @Ilia: > What are the changes in your spec? Just an update of the sources or are > there other changes? Hi Jose, At this link: https://ilgrad.fedorapeople.org/specs/maxima/ I have posted the current spec file, my version of the spec, and the diff. The main differences are that some old patches are no longer relevant, and there is also a difference in the translation files. In Fedora, it is still necessary to add a fresh version of sbcl and rebuild all dependent packages.(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229504)
I ended using the Dist Git Repo (from copr): https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/ilgrad/maxima/maxima.git This allows to me to see what you did change between versions. :-) I took most of your changes. The only exception was the change of the url for one of the sources as I am not sure how canonical it is. I will build it without sbcl, for now, and proceed in an iterative way. I have already built it locally on Fedora 40 (using mock) and it works. I am building it for Rawhide and if it succeeds I will follow the waterfall, first F40, then F39 and then F38. Let us see how this works. Thanks for your work on this.
Hi Jose, sbcl is one of the canonical lisps used with maxima, and one of the faster ones clisp the one being slower but using less memory. Though I don't know what the current state is with gcl and ecl lisps. On my Fedora 38 there is ``` [user@localhost ~]$ dnf list installed | grep maxima maxima.x86_64 5.45.1-4.fc38 @fedora maxima-runtime-sbcl.x86_64 5.45.1-4.fc38 @fedora ``` The maxima "executable" allows, if built correctly, to select a lisp implementation (like sbcl, clisp, ...) to be used. @Ilia FYI. I currently use a maxima 5.47.0 with sbcl compiled by myself, I usually only install from the official fedora repo and compile the other stuff by myself. Regards Andre
Hi Ilia, a little bit off-topic, but if you have a copr for fricas. please consider getting it into the official Fedora repo. Regards Andre
Thanks @Jose, it seems we do indeed need to update sbcl, I've created a ticket and described the issue.(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229504) Regarding the current patches for Maxima, you peek Archlinux(https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/maxima/-/blob/main/PKGBUILD?ref_type=heads). @Andre, yes, you are right, sbcl is the best (we need to get the latest version to support AMD64 processors). As for memory, it's adjustable as far as I understanded during the fricas build: example config for fricas ``` %configure --with-lisp="sbcl --control-stack-size 512 --dynamic-space-size 6000" --enable-FEATURE --enable-gmp --with-x --enable-algebra-optimization="((speed 3) (safety 0))" ``` more info: https://www.sbcl.org/manual/ Regarding fricas, I have small free time at the moment, but I will try to keep the copr up to date, you can safely install from the copr repository, there are no backdoors).
In the meantime I have upgraded from Fedora 38 to Fedora 39, but still no 5.47.0. Though the version 5.47.0 is available on Fedora 40. But Fedora 40 is unusable for me, causing max volume jumps all the time which is quite irritating. Please. would it be possible to backport from Fedora 40 to Fedora 39?
Fedora Linux 38 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2024-05-21. Fedora Linux 38 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see the version field. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an active release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
@amoloney Please reopen this bug. It still applies to Fedora 39 my Fedora 39 currently has Maxima 5.45.1 installed with the determinant bug discussed above. This should be fixed, because it might produce unnoticible sign swaps. please add Fedora 39 above. I can't move to the newer Fedora 40 because I have sound issues forcing me to disable sound completely or get brutally random max volume changes.
Hi @andre.maute I've reopened the bug and retargeted it to version F39 as requested. Hope you find a suitable fix, and please let me know if there is anything else I can help with.
@amoloney Thank you very much and kind regards, Andre.
This package has changed maintainer in Fedora. Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component.
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 39 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 39 on 2024-11-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '39'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 39 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
Fedora Linux 39 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2024-11-26. Fedora Linux 39 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see the version field. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an active release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days