[bug #68237] "load" emits long series of "classdef not found" warnings when loading struct array

Philip Nienhuis <[email protected]> Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:02:46 -0400 (EDT)

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.gnu.octave.bugs
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Please use the bug tracker to post updates to a bug report. The mailing list is intended as a read-only notification stream. Info posted to this mailing list address won't appear in the tracker database where it is most useful.

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #68237 (group octave):

@foreverallama:
Thanks for the warning ID. (By guessing I had it almost right myself.)
The warning ID isn't listed in the manual, that is, I use the GUI doc browser,
and via "function index", "warning", "warning ID's" you get an (I suppose)
alphabetical list where "Octave:load:classdef-not-found" is lacking. If my
observation is right the warning ID should be added there.

FWIW, "lastwarn" immediately after running the code containing the pertinent
'load' command gives me:

octave:3> lastwarn
ans = Octave language extension used: ! used as operator near line 653 of file
C:\Programs\Octave\Octave
-12.0.0-20260314D\mingw64\share\octave\12.0.0\m\statistics\mean.m
octave:4>

which doesn't help much :-)
You're not to blame, that latter warning is obviously due to my code making
liberally use of 'Octave language extensions' (which were always a big motive
for me to prefer Octave over Matlab). (I didn't even know that that warning
is normally suppressed. Which makes me wonder how much performance impact
such suppressed warnings have.)

Unfortunately, like you wrote, loading the file in dev-Octave 12 with either
'warning ("off, "Octave:load:classdef-not-found", "local")' or 'warning
("off", "all", "local")', or even no warnings setting at all, takes about 43.5
secs. on my old desktop with Intel core i5 4570 CPU (and 10.6 sec. on my AMD
Ryzen-7 5800U laptop).
Octave 10.3.0 takes a mere .21 secs to load the file on that same old desktop
and .08 sec. on the AMD laptop (all using tic; .... ; toc).

Indeed, some performance gain would be very welcome ...

_______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68237>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 228 B)