Re: Release 5.0 Next Tasks

[Marco Caliari]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 20:45:04 -0500
Andrew Janke <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 1/17/19 12:10 PM, Rik wrote:
> > Today we completed the language translations (task #12) and the lint 
> > checking of the code base (task #8).
> > 
> > Next up is tasks #9 and #10.
> > 
> > 9) Verify 'make check' is passing on all buildbot combinations of OS and 
> > compilers
> > 
> >   * Start discussion on octave-maintainers list about which failing
> >     tests must be fixed
> >   * Identify and fix any tests determined critical in step above
> > 
> > 10) Compile and run Octave test suite with 
> > --enable-address-sanitizer-flags to check for memory leaks
> > 
> >   * Results posted to bug report: #55415
> >     <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55415>
> >   * Memory leak in graphics subsystem #55287
> >     <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55287>
> > 
> > I've looked through the memory leaks in bug #55415 and I don't think 
> > they are gating on the release.  However, the leak in bug #55287 should 
> > be addressed for 5.0.
> > 
> > This isn't a whole lot so I imagine that we could produce the first 
> > release candidate over the weekend.  That will undoubtedly flush out a 
> > few more bugs, but the process does feel like it is converging.
> > 
> > --Rik
> >   
> 
> There are still some tests in the test suite failing on macOS for me.
> 
> Run on 1/120/2019 against about commit 2ae2dcf0f4d5.
> 
> Summary:
> 
>    PASS                            15453
>    FAIL                               10
>    XFAIL (reported bug)               43
>    SKIP (missing feature)             48
>    SKIP (run-time condition)          29
> 
>    Failed tests:
>       libinterp/corefcn/pr-output.cc-tst
>       libinterp/parse-tree/oct-parse.yy-tst
>       general/logspace.m
>       miscellaneous/tar.m
>       plot/util/copyobj.m
>       plot/util/hgsave.m
>       sparse/eigs.m
> 
> Is the goal to have a clean test suite baseline for the release?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andrew

The problem in eigs is strange, the matrix and the function versions should
do exactly the same thing. Therefore, I implemented the assert
instructions with 0 tolerance. Anyway, the workaround is to relax a bit the
tolerance, 1e-14 should work.

Marco