make docker: allow overriding $(DOCKER) command (e.g. podman)#220
make docker: allow overriding $(DOCKER) command (e.g. podman)#220
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #220 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 58.45% 58.45%
=======================================
Files 12 12
Lines 1372 1372
Branches 323 323
=======================================
Hits 802 802
Misses 434 434
Partials 136 136 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
(to avoid triggering segfaults for failed asserts; this at least gives abort)
| $(MAKE) -C build/tesseract training-install | ||
|
|
||
| TESSERACT_CONFIG ?= --disable-openmp --disable-shared CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fPIC -fno-math-errno -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic" | ||
| TESSERACT_CONFIG ?= --disable-openmp --disable-shared CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fPIC -fno-math-errno -Wall -Wextra -Wpedantic -UNDEBUG" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bertsky, it's a bit strange if you add an unrelated commit to a pull request which was already reviewed by yourself.
I am not sure that your change in line 126 is a good idea (debug code adds instructions that increase processing time), and you have not given a proper explanation of why you made it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm afraid your change will do exactly what you wanted to avoid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
see this why we must at least avoid NDEBUG; keeping -g otherwise is a good idea to get symbols when there is a crash
all this is a far cry from being satisfactory (libtesseract must use exceptions in the end!), just less insane (segfault)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So you prefer getting a SIGSEGV because of your change instead of getting an abort() like in the current configuration?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
in other places like this we need !defined(NDEBUG) for certain safety checks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So you prefer getting a SIGSEGV because of your change instead of getting an abort() like in the current configuration?
No, segfault is obviously even worse, but I'm in a bind: the place that actually triggers my latest segfault/abort needs !defined(NDEBUG) – so the snippet I showed first behaves different, but is (currently) not as relevant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See sirfz/tesserocr#365 for how I would like this to be solved.
3 participants
No description provided.