Online Developer Meeting (2022-01-25): Difference between revisions

(Remove date from Jitsi link)
Line 10: Line 10:
* Blocking issues: 9 bugs targeting 7.0.90 (see [https://octave.space/savannah/# Savannah overview on octave.space])
* Blocking issues: 9 bugs targeting 7.0.90 (see [https://octave.space/savannah/# Savannah overview on octave.space])
* Most important ones (in no particular order):
* Most important ones (in no particular order):
** [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?61788 bug #61788: arrays of type int16 contain wrong numbers]
** bug {{bug|61788}}: arrays of type int16 contain wrong numbers]
** [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?61813 bug #61813: memory management bug when calling MEX that returns an output]
*** Will probably be reverted before Octave 7.
** [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?61821 bug #61821: segfault using tree_parameter_list in oct file]
** bug {{bug|61813}}: memory management bug when calling MEX that returns an output]
** [https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?61898 bug #61898: subsref: Error when field syntax is used on non-scalar @class object]
*** Issue if Octave is compiled with C++17, while the mex file not. @jwe checks on this.
** maybe also: <code>malloc</code>-<code>delete[]</code> combination in the .mex interface
*** maybe also: <code>malloc</code>-<code>delete[]</code> combination in the .mex interface
** bug {{bug|61821}}: segfault using tree_parameter_list in oct file]
*** Lower priority, only conditionally reproducible.
** bug {{bug|61898}}: subsref: Error when field syntax is used on non-scalar @class object]
*** Needs reproducible example without interval package. Similar bug {{bug|61843}} reported.
* A few package releases with fixes for Octave 7 were pushed to mxe default, e.g. https://hg.octave.org/mxe-octave/rev/d601436d29f2 (ga, control, communications)
* A few package releases with fixes for Octave 7 were pushed to mxe default, e.g. https://hg.octave.org/mxe-octave/rev/d601436d29f2 (ga, control, communications)
** Should those changes be applied to the "release" branch?
** Should those changes be applied to the "release" branch? -YES.
* Revisit load path caching: https://octave.discourse.group/t/rfc-remove-faulty-load-path-caching/2136
* Revisit load path caching: https://octave.discourse.group/t/rfc-remove-faulty-load-path-caching/2136
** Improving the caching strategy is the way to go.


=== C++17 features in Octave API? ===
=== C++17 features in Octave API? ===