Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 14: Line 14:  
* Which version numbers to update in which files on (minor) release? (CITATION file?)
 
* Which version numbers to update in which files on (minor) release? (CITATION file?)
 
* Update of merge date for Octave 7.x?
 
* Update of merge date for Octave 7.x?
 +
 +
=== Importance of allowing Octave headers in C language sources ===
 +
 +
Some header files in Octave have been written to allow them to be compiled by a C compiler.  It is not clear whether anyone really needs to do that and it adds somewhat to the cost of maintaining Octave to ensure that this goal is met, even for just a few of the public header files.  Would it be OK to change Octave so that public header files require a C++ compiler?  And would it be OK to make this change in version 7 without deprecating and preserving the current coding style for two release cycles?
 +
 +
See bug report [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61370 61370] and also comments 39 and 40 in [https://octave.discourse.group/t/using-m-prefix-for-member-variables-in-c-classes/1517 this discourse discussion] for some motivating examples of cases where it might be simpler to expect that Octave header files will be compiled by a C++ compiler.
    
=== Fallback topic: <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> works differently on POSIX and Windows ===
 
=== Fallback topic: <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> works differently on POSIX and Windows ===
Line 23: Line 29:  
* On Windows, <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> also replaces the current process. But each process has a distinct id on Windows. I.e., the new process gets a different process id from the original one. Another process (like a terminal) waiting for the original process id will resume once the '''original''' process terminates. (The same happens with <code>exec</code>.) That leads to issues when trying to use the <code>octave.exe</code> wrapper on Windows.
 
* On Windows, <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> also replaces the current process. But each process has a distinct id on Windows. I.e., the new process gets a different process id from the original one. Another process (like a terminal) waiting for the original process id will resume once the '''original''' process terminates. (The same happens with <code>exec</code>.) That leads to issues when trying to use the <code>octave.exe</code> wrapper on Windows.
 
* Could we use <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_WAIT</code> instead? IIUC, that would require passing the return code from the spawned process. What else?
 
* Could we use <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_WAIT</code> instead? IIUC, that would require passing the return code from the spawned process. What else?
      
== Previous topics ==
 
== Previous topics ==

Navigation menu