On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:45:36 +0200 Burcin Erocal <burcin@erocal.org> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:39:42 +0200 Jens Vollinga <jensv@nikhef.nl> wrote:
Hi from GiNaC side,
just some short comments:
Burcin Erocal schrieb:
- It takes ages to build The packages above took ~25 minutes to build on my desktop machine (15 for cln, 9 for ginac)
Did you configure with the --disable-static option? Otherwise your build time is just twice the usual time (looks like it).
I didn't do anything to try to make these times better. I was more concerned with benchmarking speed of basic manipulations, and thought that these problems can be solved easily later.
Your suggestion reduces the compilation time of ginac to 5 minutes. Looks like we're already below William's 8 minute limit. Now can we fix the cln problem? :)
Using the --disable-static option while configuring cln brings down its build&install time to 9 minutes. One thing that remains in favor of cln is that it uses memory pools. This would be hard to do with a simple rewrite. I don't know how much this effects performance though. Burcin