Re: bug #39257: handles to nested functions are not yet supported

[Sascha Suessspeck]

Thanks for your suggestion and detailed description in the email below, Keith. My apologies for the faux pas.

It worked like a charm and I was able to install the patched Octave on Linux properly. I also managed to get the GUI going with the help from previous forum discussions and javac compiler installed and found by way of downgrading some pre-installed jre packages...nevermind! 

Next step is to cross-build Octave for Windows on Linux via mxe because I seem to run out of excuses occupying my wife's notebook with your help.

Thanks a lot for all your support. The patch for the above bug seems to be working for me by the way and should be considered in the next release I reckon.

Thanks again, and all the best,

Sascha

On 15 December 2016 at 14:01, Keith Keith <address@hidden> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Sascha Suessspeck <address@hiddenedu.au> wrote:

Hi John,

You have all gone quite, so I started to pick up a Linux system with the aim to cross-build Octave for Windows. As I understand, I need to build Octave (patched) on Linux first and move the dist archive of the running version to the appropriate folder in octave-mxe. If you could confirm my understanding of the above that would be great.

Since I am short of disk storage and would like to compile without debugging symbols, I wonder what the prefix is I should be using in order to achieve this. I tried following the installation guide using make CFLAGS=-O CXXFLAGS=-O LDFLAGS= which returns "g++: error: unrecognized command line option '-0' ". Any working suggestions to reduce disk storage to unpack and compile from source please?

Thanks again,

Sascha

>CFLAGS=-O CXXFLAGS=-O
> g++: error: unrecognized command line option '-0'

You're using two different characters there.  In the CFLAGS line you're using the letter O.  In the error line you're using the number 0.  -O works on my machine and is short for -O1.  -0 as in the number will absolutely give an error.  I recommend O2.  I think the main advantage of O1 is it compiles faster than O2 but don't quote me on it.  -O2 will run faster.  Both will try to shrink the code relative to no -O flag.  -Os is the sacrifice speed to reduce size if possible option.  O3 is the trade size for speed option.  It may run faster than O2 and will be larger.   Octave is a pretty big piece of software.  It does lots of stuff and comes with lots of libraries.  You may find the exectuable size reduction of Os negligible.  I think the main use of Os is embedded systems with extremely limited resources.  If you're determined to try compile it with O2 and Os and compare the results.