On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 09:08:35 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 27 May 2012 at 09:55, peter green wrote: > | >| At least for s390 the problem is not buildd resources. s390 has a 31bit > | >| address space, which g++ manages to exhaust compiling this insane source > | >| file. That can't be fixed by rescheduling. > | > | >So what do we do? > | > | My suggestion would be to drop the optimisation level to -O1 (and if that > | fails -O0) on the problem architectures. Dropping the optimisation is not > | ideal but it's better than losing the package completely IMO. > > That is a good idea. > > And we already do this for QuantLib itself > > > ## edd 18 May 2002 no optimisation or debugging on baby systems > ## edd 14 May 2005 don't do it on mipsel or mips either > ## edd 26 Jun 2007 use cpu test, not arch test -- thanks to Riku via > #430709 > ifneq "$(findstring $(cpu), m68k arm armeb mipsel mips)" "" > compilerflags = -O0 -g0 -D_REENTRANT -fpermissive > endif > > > so I may as well do it for RQuantLib which has to build the massive SWIG C++ > file again the same QuantLib headers. > > I guess that'll lead to a debian/rules modification and new a package > revision rather than a bin-NMU? > Right. Though for the s390 issue building without -g may be better than disabling optimisations.
Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120528092018.go31...@radis.cristau.org
