Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 6: |
Line 6: |
| * Meet and greet 5 minutes before meeting (audio testing). | | * Meet and greet 5 minutes before meeting (audio testing). |
|
| |
|
| === Release process of Octave 7.1 ===
| |
|
| |
| * Blocking issues: 8 open bugs targeting 7.0.90, 3 marked as "ready for test" (see [https://octave.space/savannah/# Savannah overview on octave.space])
| |
| * Good progress on some of the blocking issues by jwe. Most important remaining ones:
| |
| ** bug {{bug|61788}}: arrays of type int16 contain wrong numbers
| |
| *** The <code>:</code>-operator will probably be changed to return an array (instead of a range object) before Octave 7.
| |
| *** Image package had trouble with this change (bug {{bug|61815}}). These changes should be reviewed with the next Octave 7 release candidate.
| |
| *** jwe summarized options for the release in comment #18 of the bug report.
| |
| *** jwe will revert most changes on "stable" (Octave 7) and continue developing on "default".
| |
| ** bug {{bug|61813}}: memory management bug when calling MEX that returns an output
| |
| *** @jwe check in a fix that will also revert to copying data in the .mex interface (less efficient, but also the way it has always been done until now) unless Octave is compiled with C++17 pmr.
| |
| *** This also avoids the <code>malloc</code>-<code>operator delete[]</code> mismatch.
| |
| *** Confirmed fixed now.
| |
| ** bug {{bug|61821}}: segfault using tree_parameter_list in oct file
| |
| *** Lower priority, only 32-bit (only on Windows?). Maybe a compiler bug?
| |
| *** Not a blocker.
| |
| ** bug {{bug|61898}}: subsref: Error when field syntax is used on non-scalar @class object
| |
| *** Not a bug in Octave core. Recent changes to output argument validation uncovered an issue in interval package.
| |
| ** Similar bug {{bug|61843}}: Regression with subscripted assignments with arrays of objects
| |
| *** Older regression.
| |
| ** Use suffix for API string when it requires C++17 pmr?
| |
| *** Should indicate if Octave was compiled with C++17 support or not.
| |
| *** Need to recompile packages.
| |
| *** Agreed to avoid suffix. Leave things as is.
| |
| ** bug {{bug|61687}}: Ignore not updated translations. Open new bug report for further translations.
| |
| ** '''There will be soon a second release candidate.'''
| |
|
| |
| === Minimum Qt5 version for Octave 8? ===
| |
|
| |
| * No real conclusion. Wait for progress with Linux distributions.
| |
| * See [https://octave.discourse.group/t/qt5-15-already-unsupported-upstream-except-commercial-license/737/15 Qt5.15 already unsupported upstream (except commercial license)?]
| |
|
| |
| === libinterp ===
| |
|
| |
| * suggestion to prefer <code>std::copy_n</code> instead of for-loop to duplicate data
| |
| ** try to avoid making too many copies anyways!
| |
| * rik updated about the progress on bug {{bug|61753}} (https://octave.discourse.group/t/project-to-review-and-replace-c-assert-with-error-calls/2043)
| |
| ** jwe suggest to use [https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/exceptions proper C++ exceptions] in some future release of Octave, instead of error function pointers.
| |
|
| |
| === dynamic loader (oct-files) ===
| |
|
| |
| * jwe worked on refactoring dynamic code loading with <code>std::shared_ptr</code>, also for reference counting.
| |
| * Not clear if there is a portable "standard" way of loading code dynamically (oct-file). Ideas are welcome.
| |
|
| |
| === (Not discussed) Where to announce package updates now? ===
| |
|
| |
|
| * See [https://octave.discourse.group/t/2246 Do we still announce new OF package releases and if yes, where?]
| |
|
| |
|
| == Previous topics == | | == Previous topics == |
Line 61: |
Line 15: |
| * 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): |
| ** bug {{bug|61788}}: arrays of type int16 contain wrong numbers | | ** bug {{bug|61788}}: arrays of type int16 contain wrong numbers] |
| *** The <code>:</code>-operator will probably be changed to return an array (instead of a range object) before Octave 7. | | *** Will probably be reverted before Octave 7. |
| ** bug {{bug|61813}}: memory management bug when calling MEX that returns an output | | ** bug {{bug|61813}}: memory management bug when calling MEX that returns an output] |
| *** Probably caused by changes for more efficient data interface for .mex files. @jwe will check this. | | *** Issue if Octave is compiled with C++17, while the mex file not. @jwe checks on this. |
| ** Possible issues if Octave is compiled with C++17 (<code>--enable-pmr-polymorphic-allocator</code>), while .oct files are not.
| | *** maybe also: <code>malloc</code>-<code>delete[]</code> combination in the .mex interface |
| *** Maybe change the API string if Octave is configured with polymorphic allocators? | | ** bug {{bug|61821}}: segfault using tree_parameter_list in oct file] |
| *** Leave that option in. But disable it by default. (That is already the current state.)
| | *** Lower priority, only conditionally reproducible. |
| ** <code>malloc</code>-<code>delete[]</code> combination in the .mex interface
| | ** bug {{bug|61898}}: subsref: Error when field syntax is used on non-scalar @class object] |
| *** No decision made. Maybe leave as is?
| | *** Needs reproducible example without interval package. Similar bug {{bug|61843}} reported. |
| ** bug {{bug|61821}}: segfault using tree_parameter_list in oct file | | * 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) |
| *** Check if we are doing something wrong for 32bit. Probably not a blocker. | | ** Should those changes be applied to the "release" branch? -YES. |
| ** bug {{bug|61898}}: subsref: Error when field syntax is used on non-scalar @class object | |
| *** Try finding a minimal reproducer (without interval package). Similar bug {{bug|61843}} reported. | |
| * A few package releases with fixes for Octave 7 were pushed to the default branch of MXE Octave, e.g. https://hg.octave.org/mxe-octave/rev/d601436d29f2 (ga, control, communications) | |
| ** Should those changes be grafted 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 (see e.g. bug {{bug|54636}}). | | ** Improving the caching strategy is the way to go. |
| ** Long-term: A complete overhaul of the load path caching implementation is probably necessary.
| |
|
| |
|
| === C++17 features in Octave API? === | | === C++17 features in Octave API? === |
Line 87: |
Line 36: |
| * Should we announce that possible requirement for some time in the future with the release of Octave 7? | | * Should we announce that possible requirement for some time in the future with the release of Octave 7? |
| * See also: [https://octave.discourse.group/t/should-octave-switch-to-c-17-if-so-when/2114 Should Octave switch to C++17? If so, when?] on Discourse. | | * See also: [https://octave.discourse.group/t/should-octave-switch-to-c-17-if-so-when/2114 Should Octave switch to C++17? If so, when?] on Discourse. |
| * We'll start an experiment by enabling polymorphic allocators for default Octave on the default branch of MXE Octave. We'll evaluate if the necessary changes to dependent packages are trivial.
| |
|
| |
|
| === GSOC 2022 opening soon === | | === GSOC 2022 opening soon === |