Re: [lmi] Building lmi with pre-wx-2.9.5 snapshot

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:37:36 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> > GC> (1)(c) use '-Wno-variadic-macros' to suppress the warning
GC> > GC>   (which is treated as an error because of '-Werror'), and
GC> > GC>   hope^H^H^H^Htest that the compiled code just works?
GC> > 
GC> >  I am pretty sure that it will indeed work
GC> 
GC> [See my 2013-07-11T23:26Z message for a feasible workaround.]

 Thanks, I won't reply to that message but I did read it and can't see
anything wrong with its conclusions.

GC> Can you suggest a simple non-GUI test I could run now to prove
GC> that variadic macros actually work the way you expect with
GC> gcc-3.4.5? I grepped for 'vari' in the 'configure' output, but
GC> didn't find a feature test there.

 There is a unit test for this in tests/controls/dialogtest.cpp, which is
compiled as part of the unit test suite. Building it is normally quite
straightforward but you do need to have CppUnit headers and libraries
available. If/once you have them, simply run make in the "tests"
subdirectory of the wxWidgets build directory and then run "./test" and
"./test_gui" programs created by it. And if you don't want to run the
entire test suite (it takes some time) and want to just confirm that this
functionality works, you can simply do "./test_gui ModalDialogs".


GC> >  I don't know what are the optimal values for these options but on my
GC> > machine g++ 3.4.5 auto-detects them as
GC> > 
GC> > GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072
GC> 
GC> I tuned those parameters manually, documenting them as follows:
GC> 
GC> # As this is written in 2012, lmi is often built on machines with less
GC> # RAM per core than gcc wants. Experiments show that these flags cut
GC> # gcc's RAM appetite by fifty percent, in return for a ten-percent
GC> # speed penalty that can be overcome by increasing parallelism.
GC> 
GC> This lets me use all sixteen cores without downgrading to a
GC> more recent version of msw.

 Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation,
VZ