Re: Octave chokes on this in some systems

[Quentin Spencer]

Shai Ayal wrote:

> John W. Eaton wrote:
>
> > On 15-Nov-2005, Shai Ayal wrote:
> >
> > | IMHO this patch should definitely go into any 2.1.72 rpm and might 
> > also
> > | justify a 2.1.73 release
> >
> > But it is just hiding what looks like a bug in GCC.  Is there
> > something in a standard somewhere that allows this difference in
> > behavior, including crashing in one case, simply by moving some code
> > from a .h file to a .cc file?  We should work to fix the real bug, not
> > mask it.  Has anyone tried the same test code with the current GCC
> > sources from the SVN archive?
> >
> > jwe
>
>
> I agree that this is a work-around for someone else's bug. However as 
> it stands now octave has some problems because of this bug. I don't 
> know what the response time of the gcc team to bugs is, and then once 
> it is fixed in gcc, how much time before it migrates to the major 
> gcc-4 based distributions. I think it might be quite long.
>
> Why not implement this work around -- it is totally harmless. We will 
> have a "better" octave in spite of the "bad" gcc-4 in no time.
>
> In parallel we should work to fix the real bug (although we will not 
> be as motivated as before :) )


I'm willing to update the Fedora release of 2.1.72 with this patch, but 
for some reason when I tried patching the sources with your patch, it 
didn't work. I keeps complaining that the patch is reversed, even though 
it looks correct--maybe I found a bug in patch. Maybe this is the same 
thing Paul ran into yesterday.

-Quentin



-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------