Re: 29 Segfaults

[Rik]

On 10/09/2013 08:26 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:27:06 -0400
> From: "Michael D. Godfrey" <address@hidden>
> To: Rik <address@hidden>
> Cc: Octave Maintainers <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Criteria for identifying must-fix bugs
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 10/09/2013 01:47 PM, Rik wrote:
>> > Additional items we might want to consider are Item Group == Crash, since
>> > even with bad input the interpreter should never segfault.  But there are
>> > 29 items with this property so this may be too many to fix and still
>> > release Octave within a reasonable time frame.
> I agree that, if at all possible, all known seg-faults should be fixed.
> But, some users use the word "crash" more loosely, i.e Octave kept
> running, but the expected result was not obtained.  Are there really
> 29 separate seg-faults?  UGH!
10/10/13

Michael,

You're right that people often miscategorize a failure as a crash.  I'll go
through the suspected 29 seg faults and recategorize the ones which aren't
truly segfaults.  After that, we'll see how badly we are doing.

--Rik