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 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.
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? Thanks, Dirk | | Thanks, | | 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]