[Developers] profiling ADMB model with gprof

[Johnoel Ancheta]

Ask Dave Fournier to compile with -static flag.

On 11/18/10 8:58 AM, Ian Taylor wrote:
>  Johnoel (cc Dave Fournier)
> Thanks for the good news that the code is OK and the problems I was 
> facing are fixable. Let me know when you have the time to create a new 
> make file, or whatever is required to get things working.
>
> Also, when I try to run the executable that Dave sent last night I get 
> the error
> ./catage2: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.11' not 
> found (required by ./catage2)
> ./catage2: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not 
> found (required by ./catage2)
>
> I've seen this before when moving executables between Ubuntu and Red 
> Hat versions of linux (which I think also had separate versions of 
> GCC). Do you happen to know if this is something that can be corrected 
> such that it's possible to have one executable run on multiple linux 
> systems, or do we just need to compile for whatever each system has 
> available.
> -Ian
>
>
> On 11/18/2010 10:43 AM, Johnoel Ancheta wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> It turns out that I had not ordered the compiler options correctly for
>> the linux builds.  My bad...  Below are some example runs using time.
>>
>> ham4 (revision 506)
>> real    0m5.566s
>> user    0m5.376s
>> sys     0m0.042s
>>
>> ham4(revision head)
>> real    0m5.406s
>> user    0m5.233s
>> sys     0m0.046s
>>
>> Times are pretty close.  I'll do more testing today.
>>
>> Johnoel
>>
>>
>> On 11/17/10 3:37 PM, Ian Taylor wrote:
>>>  The which_library() function worked perfectly for me--thanks for 
>>> the information. It returned "s" and "o" when it was supposed to in 
>>> version 10. In version 9 perhaps it was not yet resurrected, as it 
>>> always returned "o", regardless of how I compiled.
>>>
>>> Pasted below is output showing that libado.a was 65% of the size of 
>>> libads.a in v9 but the ratio was 98% in v10beta, implying that 
>>> something may have gone wrong with the make file for 64 bit linux. 
>>> Allan Hicks just showed me some indication that on his Windows 
>>> computer, things were working well with v10beta, providing further 
>>> support for the idea that my slow run times were a problem with how 
>>> ADMB was getting compiled on linux.
>>>
>>> [~]$ ls -lh ~/h_itaylor/admb/v9/lib
>>> total 15M
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 1.5M Aug 18 13:52 libadmod.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 3.7M Aug 18 13:52 libado.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 5.7M Aug 18 13:52 libads.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 116K Aug 18 13:52 libadt.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 2.0M Aug 18 13:52 libdf1b2o.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 2.0M Aug 18 13:52 libdf1b2s.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor  32K Aug 18 13:52 libdf1b2stub.a
>>> [~]$ ls -lh ~/h_itaylor/admb/v10/lib
>>> total 19M
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 1.9M Nov 10 12:29 libadmod.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 5.2M Nov 10 12:24 libado.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 5.3M Nov 10 12:28 libads.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 166K Nov 10 12:29 libadt.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 3.0M Nov 10 12:20 libdf1b2o.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor 2.9M Nov 10 12:21 libdf1b2s.a
>>> -rwxr--r-- 1 itaylor itaylor  33K Nov 10 12:29 libdf1b2stub.a
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2010 3:17 PM, John Sibert wrote:
>>>> The recently resurrected function
>>>> char which_library()
>>>>
>>>> Returns:
>>>>     char containing 'o' if compiled with the OPT_LIB macro; 
>>>> contains 's' otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> But would not tell you if a specific source code file might have 
>>>> been incorrectly compiled withoug the OPT_LIB macro
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2010 11:56 AM, dave fournier wrote:
>>>>> If you look at the old libraries you will see that the safe and 
>>>>> optimzied libaries are different sizes
>>>>> due to the inline code taking up space. That should give you an 
>>>>> idea whether you have optimized
>>>>> code in the new libraries.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Developers mailing list
>>>>> Developers at admb-project.org
>>>>> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Developers mailing list
>>> Developers at admb-project.org
>>> http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>>