On 3 September 2006 at 14:40, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
| * Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-03 06:47]:
| > 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.
|
| I briefly looked at it, didn't see anything obvious and then ran out
| of time. I also don't really have the right expertise for this.
|
| > Is that the status quo or can we expect improvements at some point?
|
| For 4.1 probably not; it'd be possible for 4.2 but you'd need to come
| up with some kind of (small) testcase.
As John and I stated, 'small' is hard to define in the context of large-ish
C++ applications / libraries. The C++ source of RQuantLib are small (around
60kb) and I could probably trim that further for an example ... but it would
still need QuantLib itself which is rather larger. Would that be helpful or
not?
I have no clue what parts of QuantLib itself cause the compiler and linker to
go gaga. You'd need a real C++ export to figure that out. I am CCing one --
who is also a key developer of QuantLib.
Hth, Dirk
--
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]
