[ADMB Users] Summary -> ADMB V11.0 build (compile/link) time using MinGW or Visual C++ 2010 Express in Windows 7 (32 bit) - very slow

[Richard Methot - NOAA Federal]

Nice summary Larry.  I sure hope there are no unintended side effects of
turning optimization off, and I have noticed none.

Rick


On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Larry Jacobson (NOAA Federal) <
larry.jacobson at noaa.gov> wrote:

> My original question concerned speeding up ADMB builds using the MingGW
> and Microsoft 2010 Express compilers with ADMB V11.0 on a 32 bit Windows
> computer.
>
> Rick Methot, Jim Ianelli, Alen Hicks, Johnoel Ancheta and Dave Fournier
> responded.  All suggested reducing the level of optimization with the cpp
> program gets compiled.  This is done in the adcomp.bat file.
>
> Turning off optimization works wonders for compile time and has modest
> effects on run time. Build time with the Microsoft compiler dropped from
> 8.25 minutes to 0.13 minutes (not a typo!) and the run time increased by
> only 0.17 minutes.  Build time with the MinGW compiler dropped from 1.75
> minutes to 1 minute and the run time decreased by about 0.25 minutes
> (surprising but the MinGW web site said this can happen and my results
> varied a bit from trial to trial). Some results are summarized in a bitmap
> table below.
>
> I wouldn't say that there was a clear winner between Microsoft and MinGW.
>  It depends on the optimization level and whether you are interested in
> time to build or time to run.  Both are free...
>
> Rick Methot got the same results building the Stock Synthesis model using
> the Microsoft compiler. Getting rid of the optimization shortened the build
> time a lot but had little effect on run times.
>
> Johnoel Ancheta indicated that the ADMBTeam is currently working on this
> issue also.
>
> Dave Fournier recommended getting a new computer or running in Linux. I
> use the Linux option pretty routinely for ADMB models (for speed) but
> didn't test it here.  I have noticed that the compile times on Linux are
> longish too and I bet they get much shorter when the optimization level is
> reduced.  I agree with him about the new computer but with sequestration
> etc. on the horizon it is not going to happen.
>
> Alan Hicks recommended (several times) using reduced optimization for
> debugging/programming and full optimization for releases. Sounds like a
> good idea to me. Some care seems advisable because turning off the
> optimization may have unintended side effects.  I shouldn't have any effect
> on error checking during the compilation step but what do I know?
>
>
> Thanks everyone and cheers!
>
>
>
> --
> **********************
> Larry Jacobson
> National Marine Fisheries Service
> Northeast Fisheries Science Center
> 166 Water Street
> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026
> Voice: 508-495-2317
> Fax: 508-495-2393
> E-mail: larry.jacobson at noaa.gov
> **********************
>
> --
> **********************
> Larry Jacobson
> National Marine Fisheries Service
> Northeast Fisheries Science Center
> 166 Water Street
> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026
> Voice: 508-495-2317
> Fax: 508-495-2393
> E-mail: larry.jacobson at noaa.gov
> **********************
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at admb-project.org
> http://lists.admb-project.org/**mailman/listinfo/users<http://lists.admb-project.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>



-- 
*Richard D. Methot Jr. Ph.D.
**NOAA Fisheries - **Science Advisor for Stock Assessments*
*Office: 206-860-3365**
Mobile: 301-787-0241
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.admb-project.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130325/5ee4c478/attachment.html>