Bug#383251: g++-4.1: FTBFS for RQuantLib on i386/testing
On 22 August 2006 at 07:29, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| On 19 August 2006 at 15:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
| | Dirk Eddelbuettel writes:
| | >
| | > On 18 August 2006 at 00:58, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
| | > | * John Schmidt <email@example.com> [2006-08-17 13:46]:
| | > | > Is there a way for me to instrument my code/system, etc to indicate
| | > | > where the big time sink is?
| | > |
| | > | I'm not sure but I'll try to investigate.
| | >
| | > I didn't make that as clear as I wanted to in my last email -- but you could
| | > just compare the package build of RQuantLib on stable (where it should be few
| | > minutes) to testing (where it will be at least twice that). Not that much
| | > code in Quantlib or RQuantLib and you should get a quick feeling for how much
| | > g++ changed.
| | please identify the files, which take longer to build; it's known that
| | 4.x is slower in some cases.
| As I wrote in previous messages, the worst offender is the linking stage
| which takes several times as long as usual. On my dual Athlon (1.5 Ghz each,
| 2gb ram total) the linking of the rather small rquantlib.so takes over eight
| minutes which is totally ridiculous. It used to be one, at the most two,
I never heard any follow-up. Is there any? While it is nice that 4.1.1-11 is
now in testing it is not so nice that 4.1.1-11 exhibits the slow builds John
and I have been experiencing -- on different code bases, no less.
Is that the status quo or can we expect improvements at some point?
| Dirk (on vacation)
| Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.
| -- Thomas A. Edison
Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.
-- Thomas A. Edison