octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: 3.0.2 release (mingw32 check)


From: Benjamin Lindner
Subject: Re: 3.0.2 release (mingw32 check)
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:16:21 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)


Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
hello,

I intend to release 3.0.2 within 2 weeks. The sources are hosted as
separate repo at Thomas Weber's site:
<http://hg.tw-math.de/release-3-0-x/>. Suggestions for including other
patches are welcome.


I have built a mingw32 binary of the 3.0.2 release and find the following make check failures:

1) the one in rand.cc -> we know about the typo. fixed.

2)
>>>>> processing d:\files\admin\octaveforge_svn\trunk\octave-forge\admin\Windows\mingw32\octave\octave-3.0.2\src\ov-fcn-handle.cc
  ***** test
 a = 2;
 f = @(x) a + x;
 g = @(x) 2 * x;
 h = @log2;
 f2 = f;
 g2 = g;
 h2 = h;
 nm = tmpnam();
 unwind_protect
   save ("-text", nm, "f2", "g2", "h2");
   clear f2 g2 h2
   load (nm);
   assert (f(2),f2(2));
   assert (g(2),g2(2));
   assert (g(3),g2(3));
   unlink (nm);
   save ("-text", nm, "f2", "g2", "h2");
 unwind_protect_cleanup
   unlink (nm);
 end_unwind_protect
!!!!! test failed
error: function handle points to non-existent function

Also known and not yet dealt with (specific bug on mingw32)

3)
>>>>> processing d:\files\admin\octaveforge_svn\trunk\octave-forge\admin\Windows\mingw32\octave\octave-3.0.2\scripts/strings\mat2str.m ***** assert (mat2str ([-1/3 +i/7; 1/3 -i/7], [4 2]), "[-0.3333+0i,0+0.14i;0.3333+0i,-0-0.14i]")
!!!!! test failed
error: assert (mat2str ([-1 / 3, +i / 7; 1 / 3, -i / 7], [4, 2]),"[-0.3333+0i,0+0.14i;0.3333+0i,-0-0.14i]") expected
[-0.3333+0i,0+0.14i;0.3333+0i,-0-0.14i]
but got
[-0.3333+0i,0+0.14i;0.3333+0i,0-0.14i]

Now this one, I don't consider a bug, rather a stange test.
Why would I expect that -i has a real part of -0 (mind the sign!)?
Doing
  real(-i)
yields
  ans = 0
as expected, and
  sprintf("%f", real(-i))
yields
  0.00000
also as expected.

I don't get the point here. imag(-1) is expected to be 0 (without the sign) but not vice versa. Could the author of the test explain, why the negative sign is expected here?

4)

>>>>> processing d:\files\admin\octaveforge_svn\trunk\octave-forge\admin\Windows\mingw32\octave\octave-3.0.2\scripts/general\bitcmp.m ***** assert(bitcmp(A,Amax),bitor(bitshift(1,Amax-1),bitshift(1,Amax-2)));
!!!!! test failed
error: assert (bitcmp (A, Amax),bitor (bitshift (1, Amax - 1), bitshift (1, Amax - 2))) expected
6.7554e+015
but got
1.1259e+016
values do not match
shared variables {
  Amax =  53
  Bmax = 9.0072e+015
  A = 2.2518e+015
}

This one, Micheal reported to have been fixed in newer sources, so I don't bother with it, right?


So the build looks good.
I have a necessary patch for pkg.m, but I'll post it seperately.

Lindner Benjamin


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]