# Error concerning ipopt when using ATOM fmincon() in Scilab 2026

**URL:** <https://scilab.discourse.group/t/error-concerning-ipopt-when-using-atom-fmincon-in-scilab-2026/1152>\
**Category:** Atoms packages\
**Created:** [May 21, 2026, 2:31pm UTC](https://scilab.discourse.group/t/error-concerning-ipopt-when-using-atom-fmincon-in-scilab-2026/1152 "2026-05-21T14:31:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mottelet](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/scilab.discourse.group/mottelet/32/13_2.png) [@mottelet](https://scilab.discourse.group/u/mottelet)\
**Post date:** [May 22, 2026, 7:53am UTC](https://scilab.discourse.group/t/error-concerning-ipopt-when-using-atom-fmincon-in-scilab-2026/1152/4 "2026-05-22T07:53:50Z")

</div>

Thanks for using fmincon. If you didn’t already run this example : [https://scilab.discourse.group/t/large-scale-nonlinear-optimization-with-fmincon-in-scilab-vs-matlab](https://scilab.discourse.group/t/large-scale-nonlinear-optimization-with-fmincon-in-scilab-vs-matlab), I encourage you to do so, as it shows that fmincon+IPopt outperforms Matlab’s fmincon.

S.

---

_[View the full topic](https://scilab.discourse.group/t/error-concerning-ipopt-when-using-atom-fmincon-in-scilab-2026/1152)._