Re: headache on build repeatibility: octave vs BLODA ?

[Marco Atzeri <marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com>]

Am 26.01.2020 um 09:05 schrieb ASSI:
> Marco Atzeri writes:
> > at least I know that is not just my machine.
> > When I released the package was
> >
> >
> >    libinterp/corefcn/file-io.cc-tst
> > ............................... PASS 90/90
>
> Based on the test name there may be an assumption built into the code
> about how the filesystem behaves that isn't guaranteed on Windows/Cygwin
> or even POSIX.  If it's simply an error condition not getting checked it
> should be reproducible under debugging, but you're mostly out of luck if
> it's relying on a specific order or atomicity of certain operations, as
> debugging will almost always serialize the execution to the point where
> these types of errors do not manifest.
>
>
> Regards,
> Achim.

the other problem of debugging is that the backtrace is trash
after the segfault and that of course Octave is a
400 Kg gorilla with all its dependencies..

I will try anyway

Thanks
Marco






--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple