On 28 May 2012 at 11:20, Julien Cristau wrote: | 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.
I though -g0 achieves the goal of building without debugging support? Dirk -- Dirk Eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org | http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com -- 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/20419.47094.338841.445...@max.nulle.part
