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 PROTECTED]> [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,
minutes.
Thanks,
Dirk (on vacation)
--
Hell, there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something.
-- Thomas A. Edison
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
