Re: Interpreting Results of Make Check

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 11 October 2012 15:46, Feuerbacher, Alan
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Ed Meyer wrote:
>
>> I put 26729 there to make the tests more robust by replacing
>> hard-coded tolerances with tolerances that account for the size of
>> the test numbers; you should see no difference except possibly with
>> test('fftfilt')
>
> Unfortunately neither one of them completed properly. Here are the
> results of trying your (renamed) patch and the latest of the others:
>
> ####################
> afbacher:~/GCC/Octave/exp37/octave-3.6.3$ patch -Np1 -i 
> ../../octave-fftfilt-my.patch
> patching file scripts/signal/fftfilt.m
> patch: **** malformed patch at line 122:  %!error fftfilt (1)
>
> afbacher:~/GCC/Octave/exp37/octave-3.6.3$ patch -Np1 -i 
> ../../octave-fftfilt-2012sep11.patch
> patching file scripts/signal/fftfilt.m
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 139.
> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file scripts/signal/fftfilt.m.rej
> ####################
>
> Any idea what I should do next?

You could read the patch, the source, and figure out where to apply
the patch to the source. The patch is against the development source,
but there hasn't been too dramatic a change from the released source.
It shouldn't be so difficult to figure out how to adapt the patch.

- Jordi G. H.