RE: [Quickfix-developers] Compiling Error - Linux Solution

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Ahh ok.  Changing that forces it to regenerate the
make files and you don't have autotools installed.  I
forgot that debian is very conservative about what it
installs.  Well I suppose you could install autotools.
 It's a good thing to have if you are going to be
developing with open source tools.  Autotools is the
combination of automake, autoconf, and libtool.  They
are what generates the makefiles for QuickFIX which is
done for you in the distribution, but if you change
the input files it needs to regenerate.  Is installing
these an option for you?

--oren

--- "Leanne T. Smith" <le...@en...> wrote:
> Oren -
>  To disable compilation of the unit tests I
> commented out SUBDIRS = test
> under quickfix/src/C++/Makefile.am. I got the below
> error:
> 
> lea@fla:~/quickfix$ make
> make  all-recursive
> make[1]: Entering directory `/home/leanne/quickfix'
> Making all in src
> make[2]: Entering directory
> `/home/leanne/quickfix/src'
> Making all in C++
> make[3]: Entering directory
> `/home/leanne/quickfix/src/C++'
> cd ../.. && \
>   automake-1.6 --foreign  src/C++/Makefile
> /bin/sh: automake-1.6: command not found
> make[3]: *** [Makefile.in] Error 127
> make[3]: Leaving directory
> `/home/leanne/quickfix/src/C++'
> make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory
> `/home/leanne/quickfix/src'
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/leanne/quickfix'
> make: *** [all] Error 2
> 
> any ideas?
> 
> On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 11:03, Oren Miller wrote:
> > Oh ok, pretty old school.  I wasn't actually aware
> > they were continuing on the 2.95 branch.  2.95.3
> was
> > the last version in the line that I thought was
> widely
> > distributed.  In any case those versions
> definately
> > had even worse template support, so it wouldn't
> > surprise me if it was using an unreasonable amount
> of
> > memory.  We do most of our builds off of the 3.x
> > branch nowadays.  I'm actually a little nervous
> about
> > you not being able to run unit tests because I am
> > unfamiliar with that compiler, but definately be
> sure
> > to run the acceptance tests!
> >  
> > --- "Leanne T. Smith" <le...@en...> wrote:
> > > Oren -
> > > 
> > > I'm running - 
> > > gcc version 2.95.4 20011002 (Debian prerelease)
> > > 
> > > I'll try to compile w/o unit tests for now and
> see
> > > how that works.
> > > Thanks for your comments/suggestions!
> > > 
> > > Leanne
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 10:39, Oren Miller wrote:
> > > > There really isn't a good way to answer that
> > > because
> > > > it depends on the version of gcc you are
> using. 
> > > Some
> > > > are greedier than others.  What version are
> you
> > > using?
> > > > 
> > > > What is generally true with gcc compilers is
> they
> > > are
> > > > incredibly inneficient when compiling
> templates,
> > > and
> > > > our unit test framework is heavily template
> based.
> > >  I
> > > > would like to change this because it also
> slows
> > > down
> > > > compile times.
> > > > 
> > > > I would try to compile without the unit tests
> for
> > > now.
> > > >  You will have to rely on the acceptance tests
> to
> > > > verify the build is good.  To disable
> compilation
> > > of
> > > > the unit tests just open op the
> > > > quickfix/src/C++/Makefile.am and comment out
> the
> > > > SUBDIRS = test
> > > > 
> > > > --- "Leanne T. Smith" <le...@en...>
> wrote:
> > > > > Oren - 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you happen to know the minimal RAM &
> virtual
> > > > > memory needed to compile
> > > > > quickfix? I'd rather compile quickfix in
> > > production
> > > > > mode.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here are my RAM & virtual memory stats.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 08:15:47 up 13 days, 15:50,  1 user,  load
> > > average:
> > > > > 0.00, 0.24, 0.34
> > > > > 42 processes: 41 sleeping, 1 running, 0
> zombie,
> > > 0
> > > > > stopped
> > > > > CPU states:   0.4% user,   0.2% system,  
> 0.0%
> > > nice,
> > > > >  99.4% idle
> > > > > Mem:    124700K total,   113160K used,   
> 11540K
> > > > > free,    25276K buffers
> > > > > Swap:   305224K total,    22728K used,  
> 282496K
> > > > > free,    33584K cached
> > > > > 
> > > > > I set CXXFLAGS="-O0" where it was originally
> set
> > > to
> > > > > CXXFLAGS="-g" and
> > > > > re-ran ./configure. I'm still unable to
> compile.
> > > Any
> > > > > ideas?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 01:41, Miller, Oren
> wrote:
> > > > > > Leanne,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I believe when this happens it generally
> means
> > > > > that g++ doesn't have enough memory
> available to
> > > it.
> > > > >  Any idea how much ram and virtual memory
> you
> > > have
> > > > > allocated to that box?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > One thing you can try without messing
> around
> > > with
> > > > > any of that stuff is to turn off compiler
> > > > > optimizations.  This should lessen the
> memory
> > > > > requirement.  Just set the CXXFLAGS
> environment
> > > > > variable to -O0 and run ./configure and make
> > > again. 
> > > > > See if that pulls you through the
> compilation
> > > with
> > > > > your current configuration.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You probably won't want to run in
> production
> > > with
> > > > > that build but it will at least get you up
> and
> > > > > running while you resolve the memory issue.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --oren
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From:	Leanne T. Smith
> > > [mailto:le...@en...]
> > > > > > Sent:	Tue 3/16/2004 4:01 PM
> > > > > > To:
> qui...@li...
> > > > > > Cc:	
> > > > > > Subject:	[Quickfix-developers] Compiling
> Error
> > > -
> > > > > Linux Solution
> > > > > > I'm receiving a g++ compiling error for
> > > QuickFIX
> > > > > on Linux. I followed
> > > > > > the Installation Documentation, so I'm not
> > > sure I
> > > > > could be missing. I've
> > > > > > attached the error below. Please let me
> know
> > > if
> > > > > you have any idea what I
> 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
http://mail.yahoo.com