[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#28593] [PATCH] gnu: openfoam: Clean up to reduce closure.
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
[bug#28593] [PATCH] gnu: openfoam: Clean up to reduce closure. |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:08:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Paul,
Paul Garlick <address@hidden> skribis:
> The 'file' command also reports that the executables and shared objects
> are 'not stripped'.
That’s because we use ‘--strip-debug’ and not ‘--strip-all’ (in some
cases, the latter breaks binaries in weird ways, hence the conservative
choice.)
However, you can see in the list of ELF sections reported by “objdump
-x” that there’s no .debug* section—i.e., binaries contain the symbol
table, but not DWARF debugging info, which is far larger.
> Does adding a debug output achieve the effect of stripping the
> binaries?
I don’t think it makes any difference.
>> Normally the ‘strip’ phase would strip things. I guess the problem
>> here
>> is that libraries are not in lib/, so nothing gets stripped. This
>> would
>> be worked around by simply passing something like:
>>
>> #:strip-directories '("OpenFOAM-1.2.3/lib")
>
> Would that not give a 'directory not found' message? Currently,
>
> #:strip-directories (list (string-append
> "lib/OpenFOAM-" ,version
> "/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin"
> )
> (string-append
> "lib/OpenFOAM-" ,version
> "/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib"
> ))
Oh sorry, I had forgotten we already had this. This is perfect!
>> Rather:
>>
>> (for-each delete-file (find-files "." "\\.o$"))
>>
>> Paul can you confirm that this is OK?
>>
>
> Maybe. We need to be careful that we not delete files which are needed
> later on. Typically, a user will copy part of the directory structure
> to a subdirectory of $HOME and compile a new solver. The OpenFOAM
> 'wmake' utility takes care of the dependencies and re-compiles object
> files as needed.
>
> So, object files under 'platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/src' should be
> safe to delete. However, this needs to be checked to make sure no
> dependencies are deleted that cannot easily be re-compiled. Have you
> already checked this Dave by, for example, re-compiling a standard
> solver?
I let Dave answer on this part.
Thanks,
Ludo’.