Re: [boost] spirt status?

Subject: Re: [boost] spirt status?
From: Bryce Lelbach (admin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-27 01:30:28

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:33:54 -0800
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> What is the situation of the spirit library in the trunk?
> 
> The serialization library now depends upon the latest spirit to parse xml 
> archives.
> 
> But now serialization can't be built for a number of compilers which 
> previously
> could handle this library. This was not a surprise to me as its not unusual
> to require some tweaks to get this to work. But now I'm surprised
> that this hasn't resolved the issue.  The newer version of spirit has been
> around for at least a year, and the serializaiton library xml grammar is
> very simple compared to other spirit applications so I didn't anticipate
> any major problems - but it seems that we now ahve them.
> 
> Could spirit library developers take a look at this and give us
> an idea of what we should do about this?  Is anyone working
> on this? Should we just roll back and try again before the next
> release?

Ramey, I haven't really had a chance to look into this -too- much. However, I have
compiled Serialization multiple times on the major development toolchains (Intel
11 on windows and linux; mingw 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 on windows; VS 10 and VS 7.1 on
windows; gcc 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.2 and 4.1 on linux; clang 2.9 on linux). I have no
problems on any of these compilers anymore; to my knowledge, nobody else is having
issues, either (I spent a good amount of last week working on that).

The only outstanding issue is the test matrix. Yes, admittedly, the grammar stuff
is a bit on the slow side compile-time wise. However, I cannot reproduce these
300 second timeouts that the build machines have been reporting. I haven't had a
chance to talk to the people running the relevant machines, but I am having a
hard time buying that those machines are taking more than five minutes to
instantiate my Spirit grammar.

Let's take a look at the results from Intel's compiler. Intel is benched as being
one of the slowest compilers out there, but one of the best optimizers (
http://macles.blogspot.com/2010/08/intel-atom-icc-gcc-clang.html). 

Compile [2010-10-27 01:49:54 UTC]: fail

    "/sierra/Sntools/extras/compilers/intel/Compiler/11.0/081/bin/intel64/icpc" -c -xc++ -O0 -g -w1 -inline-level=0 -fPIC  -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_SERIALIZATION_DYN_LINK=1 -I".."   -c -o "/scratch/boost/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/serialization/build/intel-linux-11.0/debug/xml_wgrammar.o" "../libs/serialization/src/xml_wgrammar.cpp"

300 second time limit exceeded

The test box is running Red Hat, and has an impressive Dual Duo-Core Intel Xeon
(3Ghz) with 8Gb RAM. My machine is running an experimental Linux kernel built with
Clang and full debugging symbols (not to mention my kernel was not optimized). My
hardware is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and 2Gb RAM. I was running X, procmail and firefox
while testing (I suspect the Red Hat server has none of those installed, much less
running during tests). My times:

wash_at_Pegasus:~/boost/status$ time icpc -c -xc++ -O0 -g -w1 -inline-level=0 -fPIC  -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_SERIALIZATION_DYN_LINK=1 -I".."   -c -o "/scratch/boost/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/serialization/build/intel-linux-11.0/debug/xml_wgrammar.o" "../libs/serialization/src/xml_wgrammar.cpp"

real	5m54.892s
user	5m44.142s
sys	0m1.128s

I just can't imagine the Xeon being that slow, relative to my numbers...

- -- 
Bryce Lelbach aka wash
http://groups.google.com/group/ariel_devel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkzHuPQACgkQO/fqqIuE2t6aCwCcCVXmh7f507VCYbYqK4PlAQvx
K+UAoK+gnnLwmlu6hmPBSVgqHzqTSkLu
=Iwc9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----