[Developers] Link order of libraries

[Arni Magnusson]

Great, Jason's trick solves my issue #1 from below. I have updated 
http://admb-project.org/community/builds (pending review) to reflect this.

Does anyone know if this reverse order, ado32.lib adt32.lib admod32.lib 
df1b2o.lib, is in fact the best order for Borland? 
[admb-9.0.202-win32-bcc5.5.1/bin/lnkadmb-re.bat]

Likewise, does anyone know if the repeated library sequence -ldf1b2stub 
-ladmod -ladt -lado -ldf1b2stub -ladmod -ladt -lado is the best sequence 
for GCC? [admb-9.0.202-linux64-gcc4.2.4/bin/mygcco]

Is repeating necessary because the libraries are using functions from each 
other, both ways, as opposed to a specific library using functions from a 
more generic library?

I would like to contribute an improved set of user scripts, but I don't 
know the details of the code well enough to figure out the best library 
order.

Cheers,

Arni



On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Grear.Jason at epamail.epa.gov wrote:

> I was having problems executing ADMB-RE examples using a recent 
> installation for the Borland compiler. The distribution comes with a 
> file called linkadmb-re.bat. The problem was solved by editing this 
> file, reversing the order of libaries linked.
>
> Jason Grear
>
> US EPA
>
> Narragansett, RI
>



On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Arni Magnusson wrote:

> Congratulations with the new release, everyone! I think the release 
> interval is just right. Here are four thoughts about the new release:
>
> 1. I just uploaded an updated table of successful builds to 
> http://admb-project.org/community/builds. Besides the cat-and-dux story, 
> it highlights that the Borland release doesn't run random-effects 
> models, at least not for me.
>
> 2. If we're on the same page 
> (http://code.google.com/p/admb-project/issues/list), issue 58 is 
> unnecessary once issue 59 has been fixed.
>
> 3. It would be helpful if "mymodel -help" would report the correct 
> version and year, instead of all versions reporting 9.0.0 and 2008. The 
> fixed strings are currently defined in nh99/model7.cpp.
>
> 4. Between revisions 158 and 204, the SVN tree has grown from 23 MB to 
> an enormous 203 MB. This takes a long time to transfer from Hawaii to 
> Iceland. The main culprit is the Windows tools (admb/trunk/tools) with 
> the GCC compiler at 114 MB and the GnuWin32 collection at 29 MB. Should 
> we perhaps move them to a separate trunk so ADMB can be checked out 
> faster?
>
> All the best,
>
> Arni
>