[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwr
From: |
Paul Kienzle |
Subject: |
Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite) |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:56:21 -0500 |
On Dec 14, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Andy Adler wrote:
On 14 Dec 2004, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 14-Dec-2004, Andy Adler <address@hidden> wrote:
| - The code bloat problem. A static compiled octave is _much_
| smaller and _much_ more responsive than a dynamically compiled
| octave. OTOH, dynamic octave allows more flexibility, which
| pluggable ATLAS, FFTW etc.
|
| This problem is so bad that I find that I'm still mostly
| using the static compiled 2.1.42 version that I made 2 years ago.
I was not aware of this problem. When I run Octave built with shared
libraries on a Windows system, it seems as responsive as the version I
have on a Debian system. OTOH, the .oct files do seem to be
considerably larger. For a very simple one, I see about 220k on the
Windows system vs. 11k for the Debian version (both are stripped).
Does anyone know what is causing this?
You are right; the dynamically linked version is as responsive.
I mean that it takes much longer to load. From the shell, I have
a function that does things like
echo "1+1" | octave -q
This takes much longer with the dynamically linked version.
What John is seeing is a statically compiled libstdc++. On my
version I see file sizes of 30k to 130k vs. 10k to 110k on Linux,
which is only 20k extra overhead per file.
Startup times are worse with 2.1.64 at 15 s rather than 10 s for
2.1.50a. Of this, 5 s is starting the interpreter and the rest
is traversing the octave install tree looking for functions and
PKG_ADD files. In contrast, 2.1.63+octave-forge for Debian on a
similar machine takes a little over 1 s. I don't have a static
octave available to compare with, nor a MinGW compile.
| - The windows custom/cygwin problem. We would like to have a
| version for cygwin, and also one that has a custom NSIS based
| installer.
Why? What advantage does an NSIS installer have over creating Cygwin
packages and using the Cygwin installer?
The NSIS installer provides an *.exe installer that works the way
windows users expect (and is less complicated to explain than the
cygwin installer). It makes links to 'octave' the way a windows Matlab
user is used to.
To be honest, when I'm using a 'foreign' computer, and I need a
quick install of octave, I choose the NSIS version rather than
the cygwin installer.
Agreed. Cygwin is cumbersome to install and I prefer not to have
the support costs of explaining it to the end users of my software.
It's bad enough that I have to explain Octave when what they really
want is the application software.
I have been plugging away at the install process over the past year.
The octave-forge download site contains precompiled supporting
libraries.
The admin/Windows directory contains a Makefile which does all the
work of building a new octave for windows release. The install script
still needs some work (like testing it for example), then it will be
ready for a new release.
Now that I think about it, the best would be an NSIS installer
that automatically gets the latest cygwin package and installs
it into a custom minimal cygwin environment.
How about an NSIS installer which can create a link to
/opt/octave-2.1.xx
in the existing cygwin, and link the binary to /usr/bin/octave?
- Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), (continued)
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), Paul Kienzle, 2004/12/14
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), Per Persson, 2004/12/16
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), Samir Sharshar, 2004/12/17
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), Joe Koski, 2004/12/17
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X... all but not perfs, Samir Sharshar, 2004/12/17
- gfortran, Paul Thomas, 2004/12/17
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), Paul Thomas, 2004/12/14
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), John W. Eaton, 2004/12/14
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), Paul Laub, 2004/12/14
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite), Andy Adler, 2004/12/14
- Re: Packaging Octave for Windows and OS X (was: writing integer with fwrite),
Paul Kienzle <=
- Octave type system., Muthu, 2004/12/16
Re: writing integer with fwrite, Miroslaw Kwasniak, 2004/12/14