Re: Fwd: [Bug c++/14563] octave built under Cygwin very slow]

[Shai Ayal]

I think the problem is that the --disable-sjlj-exceptions is not a
compiler flag, rather it is a flag you give when you compile the
compiler. Thus to test it one would have to get the souces of GCC
3.3.3 and compile it on cygwin with the above flag, than use this
compiler to compile octave. This is a very time consuming effort since
compilation on cygwin are painfully slow -- on my P4 with winXP it
take several hours to compile octave -- I don't know exactly how many
since I always just leave it overnight

Shai

On 8/9/05, James R. Phillips <address@hidden> wrote:
> --- Paul Thomas  wrote:
> 
> > Andy,
> >
> > >  - Has anyone tried to compile octave with a gcc version compiled
> > >    with --disable-sjlj-exceptions?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, with gcc-3.4.  Not very hard, though.  Something was a rather
> > broken (readline?) and large quantities of symbols were  emitted to the
> > console at start-up.  Once it settled down, though, it ran as quickly as
> > with the samizdat gcc-3.2.
> >
> > Paul T
> 
> I am completely unfamiliar with the original bug report. I would suggest that
> those most interested in the issue try to replicate the bug with the current
> cygwin octave release, which is compiled with gcc 3.3.3.  To experiment with
> the above-defined flag, download the cygwin octave source, and modify the 
> build
> script to incorporate the compiler flag. I do suggest staying with gcc 3.3 for
> this experiment, as use of gcc 3.4 will almost certainly break the build, and
> bring in many other issues.
> 
> If solid evidence of a bug develops, which bug could be corrected by
> modification of the build process, I will be more than happy to re-release the
> package to the cygwin project.  Before I spend time on this effort however, I
> need to see evidence that it will produce a measureably faster or more 
> reliable
> package.
> 
> I would like very much to see cygwin begin the porting process on the gcc 4.0
> compiler, which Debian and other linux distributions are transitioning to 
> right
> now.  Anecdotal evidence suggests (to me) that gcc 3.4 may never be completely
> solid for building C++ applications, even on linux.  However, there is no
> cygwin mailing list activity indicating this interest is shared by the cygwin
> gcc maintainer.
> 
> James R. Phillips
> cygwin octave maintainer
> 
>