On Saturday 19 August 2006 07:03, 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
less than
2.17-1 restores saner link times?
John Schmidt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be related.
I then downloaded the gcc-4.1-source and checked if the PR debug/25468 fix was
included in the source, and it wasn't.
I am not sure if the reported behavior in the GCC bug (25468) and fix would
have any bearing on link times, but I would be happy to try this fix out.
Thanks,
John
, and linking is taking forever.
Later,
Luigi
Another data point regarding '-g' flag . . .
I just built my c++ code with optimization turned (-O2) and no '-g' and the
link times with g++-4.1 are on the order of a couple of seconds. With '-g'
on, link times are on the order of 10 minutes.
John
.
As it stands g++-4.1 is not useable for my situation.
Thanks,
John Schmidt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 17 October 2005 09:43 pm, John Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to compile a large c++ application. Without any optimizations
(debug has been enabled) the code compiles fine. However, when I turn on
-O2 optimzations, I get the following:
g++-3.3 -Wl,-rpath
-Wl,/usr/local
=gnu --enable-debug i486-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-10)
and binutils:
binutils2.16.1cvs20050902-1
John Schmidt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this before. In
reporting g++ ICEs, should I submit them to bugs at gcc or to the debian bug
page?
Thanks,
John Schmidt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8 matches
Mail list logo