[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.9.11?
From: |
Daniel J Sebald |
Subject: |
Re: 2.9.11? |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:16:37 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041020 |
Daniel J Sebald wrote:
A S Hodel wrote:
2.9.10 (and the current CVS) appear to work for me, but "make check"
hangs for me on the system calls on Mac OS X 10.4.9 on an Intel-mac.
I'm on a different machine right now, so I don't have further details
than that available.
I tried "make check" last night too. It also hanged. I'm using linux,
Fedora Core 3.
Hmm, doesn't always hang, however. Only sometimes. Is there something not good
about this test? Here is probably what is hanging:
%! do
%! if (!isunix())
%! errno (0);
%! endif
%! s = fgets (out);
%! if (ischar (s))
%! idx++;
%! str{idx} = s;
%! elseif (errno () == EAGAIN)
%! sleep (0.1);
%! fclear (out);
%! else
%! done = true;
%! endif
%! until (done)
But what happens if an error is return, say the sort routine outside of Octave
isn't complete by time of the first "ischar()" test. The errno() returns EAGAIN
and in the process of waiting 0.1 seconds with sleep() the sort application
finishes. But then the "fclear(out)" might clear "data available" so that
EAGAIN comes back the next time, after which point it is simply an infinite loop.
The only other unusual results are the scripts/elfun/acscd.m and asecd.m tests
with the division by zero problem that hangs. And this one, which I don't know
if is really a "compilation" bug:
test_quad.m ............................................ ABNORMAL RETURN FROM
DQAGP
Dan
Re: 2.9.11?, A S Hodel, 2007/04/18
- Re: 2.9.11?, Daniel J Sebald, 2007/04/18
- Re: 2.9.11?, Dmitri A. Sergatskov, 2007/04/18
- Re: 2.9.11?,
Daniel J Sebald <=
- Re: 2.9.11?, John W. Eaton, 2007/04/18
- Re: 2.9.11?, Daniel J Sebald, 2007/04/19
- Re: 2.9.11?, Daniel J Sebald, 2007/04/19
- Re: 2.9.11?, Daniel J Sebald, 2007/04/19
- Re: 2.9.11?, John W. Eaton, 2007/04/19
- Re: 2.9.11?, John W. Eaton, 2007/04/19
- Re: 2.9.11?, Daniel J Sebald, 2007/04/19
Re: 2.9.11?, Daniel J Sebald, 2007/04/19
Re: 2.9.11?, John W. Eaton, 2007/04/19
Re: 2.9.11?, Daniel J Sebald, 2007/04/19