Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

More octave fix #10

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 11, 2020
Merged

More octave fix #10

merged 3 commits into from
May 11, 2020

Conversation

HinTak
Copy link
Contributor

@HinTak HinTak commented May 11, 2020

A few more updates. The list of dependencies are just new stuff not in my fedora laptop and my pi, not meant to be exhaustive.

"get_global_value ()" is defined in octave/variables.h

In Octave 5.x, the previous collision with "get_global_value ()"
was in the include chain:

octave/parse.h -> octave/lex.h -> octave/input.h -> octave/hook-fcn.h -> octave/variables.h

But in Octave 4.x,

octave/parse.h -> octave/lex.h -> octave/input.h .. octave/hook-fcn.h -> octave/variables.h

"octave/input.h" does not include "octave/hook-fcn.h"

They have #define guards against multiple inclusions, so including
"octave/variables.h" twice in Octave 5.x is safe.
@HinTak
Copy link
Contributor Author

HinTak commented May 11, 2020

Btw, there are a fair number of deprecated warnings against octave 4.x (I have 5.x on fedora but 4.x on raspbian) - I see you were on octave 3.x - do you worry about supporting that?

Anyway - just questions that came up; don't necessarily mean I want to carry on, so this pull is as is - if I want to do those deprecation warnings that's another pull.

@flatmax
Copy link
Owner

flatmax commented May 11, 2020

We don't need to support very old octave versions. On desktop distributions they are typically much newer. On embedded build systems like openembedded and buildroot, we custom build to more recent versions.

@flatmax flatmax merged commit 247b1c8 into flatmax:master May 11, 2020
@HinTak HinTak deleted the more-octave-fix branch May 12, 2020 05:01
@HinTak
Copy link
Contributor Author

HinTak commented May 12, 2020

@flatmax personally, I think trying to support octave 3.x is a lost cause, considering that octave itself is playing catch-up with matlab. So perhaps one should just concentrate on what works with current octave (5.x) and if it is not too painful, one version back.

I mean many of the warnings seems to be that you were copying/redefining octave types which has since become accessible. So this trend (of removing duplicate / colliding definitions) for current octave is likely to break compatibility with older octave.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants