Re: Uncoordinated quantlib transition
On 28 May 2012 at 11:20, Julien Cristau wrote:
| On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 09:08:35 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| >
| > On 27 May 2012 at 09:55, peter green wrote:
| > | >| At least for s390 the problem is not buildd resources. s390 has a 31bit
| > | >| address space, which g++ manages to exhaust compiling this insane source
| > | >| file. That can't be fixed by rescheduling.
| > |
| > | >So what do we do?
| > |
| > | My suggestion would be to drop the optimisation level to -O1 (and if that
| > | fails -O0) on the problem architectures. Dropping the optimisation is not
| > | ideal but it's better than losing the package completely IMO.
| >
| > That is a good idea.
| >
| > And we already do this for QuantLib itself
| >
| >
| > ## edd 18 May 2002 no optimisation or debugging on baby systems
| > ## edd 14 May 2005 don't do it on mipsel or mips either
| > ## edd 26 Jun 2007 use cpu test, not arch test -- thanks to Riku via #430709
| > ifneq "$(findstring $(cpu), m68k arm armeb mipsel mips)" ""
| > compilerflags = -O0 -g0 -D_REENTRANT -fpermissive
| > endif
| >
| >
| > so I may as well do it for RQuantLib which has to build the massive SWIG C++
| > file again the same QuantLib headers.
| >
| > I guess that'll lead to a debian/rules modification and new a package
| > revision rather than a bin-NMU?
| >
| Right. Though for the s390 issue building without -g may be better than
| disabling optimisations.
I though -g0 achieves the goal of building without debugging support?
Dirk
--
Dirk Eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com
Reply to: