Re: ITP: octave-2.1.71

[Brian Dessent]

"James R. Phillips" wrote:

> With some strong assistance from octave upstream (John W. Eaton at octave.org)
> in tailoring the g-b-s for octave, I am close to having an octave package for
> upload.  It is linked against lapack (see my ITP for lapack), so lapack is a
> build dependency.
> 
> Upstream has provided two binary packages from a single source package: the
> main octave package, and an accompanying octave-headers package, which is
> required for compiling new octave binary (.oct) functions.

Out of curiosity, what if anything have you done to address the SJLJ
issue/PR 14563?  To summarize, the Cygwin packaged gcc has had
--enable-sjlj-exceptions for quite a while because DW2 exceptions are
broken in certain circumstances (namely, when throwing an exception in a
function used in a callback where the caller doesn't know DW2, eg. win32
api.)  I don't know much at all about octave but if it does not use any
callbacks in these situations then it might be worthwhile if you
compiled the binaries with a DW2 EH-enabled gcc, to avoid the massive
speed hit reported.

Brian