Skip to content

fix: removes unused function from reimann-zeta #4822

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

fix: removes unused function from reimann-zeta #4822

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+0 −20

Conversation

@DhruvArvindSingh
Copy link
Contributor

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

This PR removes unused zeta function from main.c file.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

@stdlib-js/reviewers

@DhruvArvindSingh
fix: fixes C implementation for
e2c547e 
---
type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes.
report:
  - task: lint_filenames
    status: passed
  - task: lint_editorconfig
    status: passed
  - task: lint_markdown
    status: na
  - task: lint_package_json
    status: na
  - task: lint_repl_help
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_src
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_cli
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_examples
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_tests
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: lint_python
    status: na
  - task: lint_r
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_src
    status: passed
  - task: lint_c_examples
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_tests_fixtures
    status: na
  - task: lint_shell
    status: na
  - task: lint_typescript_declarations
    status: na
  - task: lint_typescript_tests
    status: na
  - task: lint_license_headers
    status: passed
---

---
type: pre_push_report
description: Results of running various checks prior to pushing changes.
report:
  - task: run_javascript_examples
    status: na
  - task: run_c_examples
    status: na
  - task: run_cpp_examples
    status: na
  - task: run_javascript_readme_examples
    status: na
  - task: run_c_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: run_cpp_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: run_fortran_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: run_javascript_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: run_julia_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: run_python_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: run_r_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: run_javascript_tests
    status: na
---
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added Math Issue or pull request specific to math functionality. Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. labels Jan 20, 2025
@stdlib-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
math/base/special/riemann-zeta $\color{red}889/915$
$\color{green}+97.16\%$ 		$\color{red}68/82$
$\color{green}+82.93\%$ 		$\color{green}9/9$
$\color{green}+100.00\%$ 		$\color{red}889/915$
$\color{green}+97.16\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

@DhruvArvindSingh DhruvArvindSingh changed the title fix: removes unwanted function in reimann-zeta fix: removes unused function from reimann-zeta Jan 20, 2025
@kgryte
Copy link
Member

kgryte commented Jan 21, 2025

@DhruvArvindSingh We should check the against the upstream Boost implementation here. This seemingly extraneous function goes back to its original addition (see 4cb8bd3) by @Planeshifter and looks to extend the range of accepted values beyond a set of known odd integers. If the function is no longer necessary, that is fine, but we should double check that we are not missing something here. This also affects the JavaScript implementation.

@kgryte kgryte added Needs Discussion Needs further discussion. and removed Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. labels Jan 21, 2025
@DhruvArvindSingh
Copy link
Contributor Author

DhruvArvindSingh commented Jan 21, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Hi @kgryte , Actually the presence of zeta function creates a warning during the building phase, when used as a dependency in polygamma
image

@kgryte
Copy link
Member

kgryte commented Jan 21, 2025

@DhruvArvindSingh Yes, recognized. The point of my comment was to determine whether the reference implementation actually makes uses of the zeta function which is not currently used. It is possible that, instead of removing that function, we have a bug in our implementation and we should be using that function in some form or fashion. Meaning, you need to actually consult Boost and check how zeta is being used and assess why it was ever included in the first place.

@DhruvArvindSingh
Copy link
Contributor Author

@DhruvArvindSingh Yes, recognized. The point of my comment was to determine whether the reference implementation actually makes uses of the zeta function which is not currently used. It is possible that, instead of removing that function, we have a bug in our implementation and we should be using that function in some form or fashion. Meaning, you need to actually consult Boost and check how zeta is being used and assess why it was ever included in the first place.

Okay i'll verify the use of zeta function by then i'll make this PR as draft.

@DhruvArvindSingh DhruvArvindSingh marked this pull request as draft January 21, 2025 20:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

Math Issue or pull request specific to math functionality. Needs Discussion Needs further discussion.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@DhruvArvindSingh @stdlib-bot @kgryte