From: Orion P. <or...@co...> - 2015-07-13 17:05:33
|
On 07/11/2015 08:27 PM, Alan W. Irwin wrote: > On 2015-07-11 17:52-0600 Orion Poplawski wrote: >> On 07/10/2015 12:04 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >>> >>> My fix for octave 4.0,0 support in swig is here: >>> https://github.com/swig/swig/pull/460 > >> plplot 5.11.0 is building fine in Rawhide with a patched swig 3.0.6, octave >> 4.0.0, and the patch to plplot for swig 3.0.6 doc issue. > > Hi Orion: > > Thanks for that encouraging news with regard to good builds of the > octave binding of PLplot against Octave-4.0.0. But I have also been > concerned about the run-time results as well which you can > straightforwardly check there by simply running > > cmake .... >& cmake.out > make test_diff_psc >& test_diff_psc.out > > in an initially empty build tree. > > Normally that test shows there are no differences between the > octave-generated and C-generated results for all our examples for the > Octave-3.x.y case. If running that test there shows the same thing > for the Octave-4.0.0 case that is a very strong test of our octave > bindings for that case. > > Regardless of whether you try such a run time check, your build > success motivates me to expand the epa_build implementation to see how > far I can get with an epa_build of Octave-4.0.0 and patched versions > of swig-2 and swig-3. Assuming I can epa_build all of those, then > that would allow me to do the above run-time check here for patched > versions of both swig-2 and swig-3, and thus help build the case to > get your swig patch (or two variants of that if your patch has to be > modified for swig-2) into the next official releases of both swig-2 > and swig-3. > > Alan I'm afraid that the plplot octave tests have been failing for quite a while in Fedora Rawhide, probably due to gcc 5 as reported back in March. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nw... Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com |