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 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.
For my case when linking a bunch of object files (when generating a shared library), it takes less than 10 seconds with g++-4.0 vs 15 minutes for g++-4.1. I am not starved for memory in either case. Unfortunately, the application is very large (lots of c++ files) and I am not sure how I would need to proceed to actually par this problem down so it can be examined by someone more knowledgeable than me. John Schmidt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
