Raymond Toy wrote:
>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>
> Robert> On 1/3/07, Raymond Toy <raymond.toy at ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Robert> But even better would be to put them in src/lapack and compile
> Robert> them at the same time as everything else, but just omit them from
> Robert> the final image. Then load(lapack) would just load the lapack binaries
> Robert> instead of compiling them.
> >>
> >> I don't know how to do that. Maxima's build system for src is a bit
> >> messy. The defsystem file compiles and loads everything. Then it's
> >> done again, using the same defsystem to load everything. Hence,
> >> everything gets loaded. We'd have to rearrange the defsystem and
> >> build scripts.
>
> Robert> OK, let's not mess with the src build system. Let's put it in
> Robert> share/lapack. Can we compile it there so that users don't need to?
>
> Yeah, that we can probably do by running maxima one additional time to
> build it. I'm not sure what this will achieve though, unless you also
> ship the result fasls to the user. I don't think we do that today, do
> we?
>
> >> We could set *compile-verbose* and friends not to display these
> >> progress messages. However, on my ppc system it takes a long time
> >> (15+ minutes?) to compile, so having some messages go by gives the
> >> user a nice warm fuzzy that something is actually happening.
>
> Robert> 15 minutes?! I think users are going to be unhappy about that.
> Robert> I know I will be.
>
> I may have been exaggerating, but testing now on an unloaded 1.5 GHz
> sparc at work, cmucl takes 413 sec to compile lapack. IIRC, your
> machine is much slower than this, so not matter what, I think you'll
> be unhappy with the compile times. Clisp, however, is much faster, of
> course, and only takes 47 sec. I don't know how long gcl would take.
>
>
FWIW, on the same machine, gcl 2.6.8 takes 41 sec.
Ray