# Julia v1.3.0-rc5 is now available
**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192
**Category:** Announcements
**Tags:** release
**Created:** [November 17, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192 "2019-11-17T21:58:41Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@ararslan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ararslan)
#### Post date: [November 17, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/1 "2019-11-17T21:58:42Z")
The fifth, and I won’t say final this time so as not to jinx it but _we really hope final_, release candidate for Julia v1.3.0 is now available. You can get binaries at [Download Julia](https://julialang.org/downloads) for Linux (i686, x86-64, ARMv7, AArch64), macOS, FreeBSD (x86-64), and Windows (64-bit only right now, 32-bit will be available soon). Check out the [NEWS file](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/v1.3.0-rc5/NEWS.md) to see what will be new in 1.3.0. You can view the list of commits included since the previous release candidate, 1.3.0-rc4, [here](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/compare/v1.3.0-rc4...v1.3.0-rc5).
As a release candidate, this should **not** be considered production-ready. Rather, it’s intended to give users a chance to try out their code with 1.3.0 prior to a full release. Note that 1.3 on Travis, AppVeyor (with [Appveyor.jl](https://github.com/JuliaCI/Appveyor.jl)), and Cirrus (with [CirrusCI.jl](https://github.com/ararslan/CirrusCI.jl)) now points to 1.3.0-rc5.
Let us know in the [issue tracker](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues) if you run into any issues. As was [noted](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc4-is-now-available/29965/26) in the 1.3.0-rc4 post, any bugs you may encounter should be posted there rather than discussed in this thread for developer visibility. Assuming no problems arise with this release candidate, we’ll move forward with a full 1.3.0 release soon.
---
### Author:  [@bashonubuntu](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/bashonubuntu)
#### Post date: [November 17, 2019, 10:44pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/2 "2019-11-17T22:44:36Z")
Wohoo!
---
### Author:  [@StevenSiew](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StevenSiew)
#### Post date: [November 18, 2019, 1:22am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/3 "2019-11-18T01:22:43Z")
I have install julia 1.3 for the very first time and it (rc5) works
```julia
using Base.Threads
struct WorkDetail
t::Int64
data::Vector{Float64}
end
@show rawdata = rand(10)
NumOfThreads = 4
chunksize = length(rawdata) ÷ NumOfThreads
WorkDetailArr = WorkDetail[]
for t = 1:NumOfThreads
if t < NumOfThreads
push!( WorkDetailArr, WorkDetail(t, rawdata[chunksize*(t-1)+1:chunksize*(t)+1-1]) )
else
push!( WorkDetailArr, WorkDetail(t, rawdata[chunksize*(t-1)+1:length(rawdata)]) )
end
end
@show WorkDetailArr
Completed = Bool[false for _ = 1:NumOfThreads]
Accepted = Bool[false for _ = 1:NumOfThreads]
WorkTask(t) = begin
for c = 1:length(WorkDetailArr[t].data)
println("Thread $(t), Working with data = $(WorkDetailArr[t].data[c])")
sleep((NumOfThreads - t + 1) * rand())
end
"Signal that this thread has completed"
Completed[t] = true
println("Thread $(t) completion has been signaled")
end
Workers = Task[]
for t = 1:NumOfThreads
push!(Workers, Threads.@spawn WorkTask(t))
println("Thread $(t) has been spawned")
end
# while Accepted contains at least one element which is false
while ! all(Accepted)
for t = 1:length(Workers)
if xor(Completed[t],Accepted[t])
Threads.wait(Workers[t])
println("Thread $(t) completion has been accepted")
"Mark that controller has accepted the thread completion"
Accepted[t] = true
end
end
sleep(0.05) # Sleep for 50 milisecond
end
println("Done")
```
```julia
_
_ _ _(_)_ | Documentation: https://docs.julialang.org
(_) | (_) (_) |
_ _ _| |_ __ _ | Type "?" for help, "]?" for Pkg help.
| | | | | | |/ _ | |
| | |_| | | | (_| | | Version 1.3.0-rc5.1 (2019-11-17)
_/ |\ ___|_|_|\__ _| | Official https://julialang.org/ release
|__/ |
rawdata = rand(10) = [0.0286802098414336, 0.7032722953781154, 0.77001289603403, 0.8016182959533023, 0.8425712364199844, 0.03730465628281987, 0.28679744950075947, 0.4557346403940581, 0.9531335992120678, 0.09736993766309787]
WorkDetailArr = WorkDetail[WorkDetail(1, [0.0286802098414336, 0.7032722953781154]), WorkDetail(2, [0.77001289603403, 0.8016182959533023]), WorkDetail(3, [0.8425712364199844, 0.03730465628281987]), WorkDetail(4, [0.28679744950075947, 0.4557346403940581, 0.9531335992120678, 0.09736993766309787])]
Thread 1 has been spawned
Thread 2 has been spawned
Thread 3 has been spawned
Thread 4 has been spawned
Thread 1, Working with data = 0.0286802098414336
Thread 2, Working with data = 0.77001289603403
Thread 3, Working with data = 0.8425712364199844
Thread 4, Working with data = 0.28679744950075947
Thread 4, Working with data = 0.4557346403940581
Thread 3, Working with data = 0.03730465628281987
Thread 4, Working with data = 0.9531335992120678
Thread 3 completion has been signaled
Thread 3 completion has been accepted
Thread 4, Working with data = 0.09736993766309787
Thread 2, Working with data = 0.8016182959533023
Thread 4 completion has been signaled
Thread 4 completion has been accepted
Thread 1, Working with data = 0.7032722953781154
Thread 2 completion has been signaled
Thread 2 completion has been accepted
Thread 1 completion has been signaled
Thread 1 completion has been accepted
Done
```
---
### Author:  [@ararslan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ararslan)
#### Post date: [November 18, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/4 "2019-11-18T18:26:54Z")
> [@ararslan](#):
>
> Windows (64-bit only right now, 32-bit will be available soon)
32-bit Windows is now available.
---
### Author:  [@rajo](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/rajo)
#### Post date: [November 19, 2019, 8:06am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/5 "2019-11-19T08:06:55Z")
please wait up.
SHA256 checksums are missing. please provide them if its not too much trouble.
wish they were already there. sigh!
---
### Author:  [@ararslan](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ararslan)
#### Post date: [November 19, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/6 "2019-11-19T19:24:59Z")
> [@rajo](#):
>
> SHA256 checksums are missing
Missing from where? We have them, and they’re available where they always are:
SHA-256: [https://julialang-s3.julialang.org/bin/checksums/julia-1.3.0-rc5.sha256](https://julialang-s3.julialang.org/bin/checksums/julia-1.3.0-rc5.sha256)
MD5: [https://julialang-s3.julialang.org/bin/checksums/julia-1.3.0-rc5.md5](https://julialang-s3.julialang.org/bin/checksums/julia-1.3.0-rc5.md5)
---
### Author:  [@ImreSamu](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ImreSamu)
#### Post date: [November 19, 2019, 7:37pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/7 "2019-11-19T19:37:52Z")
> [@ararslan](#):
>
> Missing from where?
probably from the Download page : [Download Julia](https://julialang.org/downloads/)
- only the GPG is linked.
---
### Author:  [@oschulz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/oschulz)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2019, 11:29am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/8 "2019-11-22T11:29:58Z")
> I won’t say final this time so as not to jinx it but we really hope final
Uhm … I really hate to ask … but … could there possibly be a v1.3.0-rc6? v1.3.0-rc5 broke some `@inferred` tests for me that had been running fine since v1.0 (I think even before): [Behavior of Array[] with array elements changed in Julia v1.3.0-rc5 somehow · Issue #33919 · JuliaLang/julia · GitHub](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/33919)
---
### Author:  [@kristoffer.carlsson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kristoffer.carlsson)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2019, 11:33am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/9 "2019-11-22T11:33:53Z")
It should be stated that the result of inference is free to change between versions.
---
### Author:  [@oschulz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/oschulz)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2019, 12:49pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/10 "2019-11-22T12:49:32Z")
> It should be stated that the result of inference is free to change between versions.
I understand, that’s why here is me begging. 🙂
This could have a quite a bit of a performance impact in my case - the operations affected are often used within a function, and so this would cause quite a bit of type instability. ☹
---
### Author:  [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2019, 12:50pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/11 "2019-11-22T12:50:03Z")
Indeed. You’d have to make a pretty strong case that something is really broken.
---
### Author:  [@oschulz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/oschulz)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/12 "2019-11-22T16:34:41Z")
> Indeed. You’d have to make a pretty strong case that something is really broken.
I’ll try (on #33919 - sorry for asking about a possible new RC here - I just replied to the “RC5 available” and kinda forgot that I would spam a lot of people with this issue, because so many have announcements set to watch/notify).
And yes, I understand that we’re really, _really_ close to the v1.3 release, and there’s no holding it up without very good reason. I was just kinda thrown by this - since v1.0 inference had, subjectively, always seemed to improve, and this code had always been type stable, so to see that break between two Julia RC’s just surprised me.
---
### Author:  [@jebej](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/jebej)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/13 "2019-11-22T16:47:37Z")
> It should be stated that the result of inference is free to change between versions.
The issue here is about an inference failure (inferred as `Any`) which previously worked. Did you mean to say that this is normal?
---
### Author:  [@carstenbauer](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/carstenbauer)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/14 "2019-11-22T17:01:28Z")
It very well might be expected. `Any` doesn’t necessarily indicate a type-inference “failure”. The inference system is free to deliberately spit out `Any` (for example to avoid long type inference times).
---
### Author:  [@oschulz](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/oschulz)
#### Post date: [November 22, 2019, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/15 "2019-11-22T20:01:23Z")
Well, turns out (see [https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/33919](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/33919)) that it was just the way I initialized something in the tests of ArraysOfArrays.jl (Output of `Array[...]` with array element in a `hcat` is less strict than before).
Sorry if I sounded a bit alarmist, I do apologize. My first impression had been that some inference that ArraysOfArrays (we use it heavily in our working group) needs for type stability had broken, that’s why I asked about the possibility of a last-minute fix before v1.3
Turns out this may not be a bug at all, and I should have taken a deeper look first - I was worried that @ararslan’s finger might descend on the “release” button any moment now … 😉
Again, sorry for the noise on announcements.
---
### Author:  [@kristoffer.carlsson](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/kristoffer.carlsson)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2019, 2:16pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-v1-3-0-rc5-is-now-available/31192/16 "2019-11-23T14:16:51Z")
The problem wasn’t in inference though, it was an unintended behavior change so that should be reverted before release. However, since it is just restoring behaviour to 1.3rc4 I’m pretty sure there won’t be a new RC just for that.