[Developers] Link order of libraries

Arni Magnusson arnima at hafro.is
Wed Apr 29 11:40:55 PDT 2009

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? 

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 



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
> 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

More information about the Developers mailing list