From: Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve (rwgk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-24 11:32:53
--- Markus_Schöpflin <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I believe process_jam_log would eventually have finished, I you would have
> been patient enough. (Maybe next year or so... :-) )
Oh, I didn't think processing a few log files with a C++ program could take
more than 75 minutes?!
> I checked in a performance patch for process_jam_log yesterday, do you know
> if your version already has that patch included?
I was using revision 1.31. A cvs update right now didn't lead to any changes.
> AFAICT, the patch is not
> enough to let process_jam_log complete in a reasonable amount of time on
> that platform for a full regression run, but I got a fives times speed-up
> when processing smaller parts of the regression log file.
OK, next time I'll wait a little longer.
> The workaround I'm currently using is to use a binary built by g++-3.4.1,
> this at least enables me to run the regression tests for that platform.
> Apart from that, the regression runs for test_read_write_mutex don't hang
> on my platform currently, they abort with an error. (see
> http://tinyurl.com/4j7dd )
Hm, if it works better (kind of) for you with the latest compiler maybe I
should stop running the tests here... All I care about personally is
Boost.Python and that works just fine.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk