Valery Pipin wrote:
>
> Then, if the case, you have to clean the lapack source tree from fasl's files
> and start again with load(lapack). This procedure need enough memory be sure
You shouldn't have to remove all fasls. Just the last one that failed
to compile.
> that nothing else is concurrent with compilation. BTW for cmucl the
> compilation is more smooth on my pc.
There is (was?) some "optimization" for cmucl. One of the files is
6000+ lines all in one function. It takes a huge amount of memory and a
very long time to compile, so I modified it so that cmucl byte-compiles
that one file. It compiles much faster, doesn't use as much memory, and
doesn't seem to impact runtime too much.
Perhaps that one file can run interpreted in sbcl?
Ray