 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled by:"
> Jong
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_2 "FILL IN NAME HERE...."
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_3 "The POV-Ray Team(tm) is not responsible for
> supporting this version."
Given what you did above, I'd suggest you do not try compiling povray,
but rather use the official Linux binary that should work on your RedHat distro.
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> #define DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_1 "This is an unofficial version compiled
> by: Jong"
No, the correct answer is to fill in DISTRIBUTION_MESSAGE_2,
which is clearly stated as "FILL IN NAME HERE....".
Fortunately this *very basic and documented* stuff will simply
vanish in 3.6...
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet wrote:
> Given what you did above, I'd suggest you do not try compiling povray,
> but rather use the official Linux binary that should work on your RedHat
> distro.
>
> - NC
>
On the contrary, he should compile Povray because he doesn't it will bee
very very slow (optimized for pentium 1) whereas using an optimized
version can improve performances by 50% !!! (to do this, you'll need to
modify the Makefile => ask for it when you'll be ready)
There is no matter in compiling povray or something else even if you
don't know how to do ! remember that you didn't know how to do at the
begining, but you have learn it ! why wouldn't he be able to learn it too ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> very very slow (optimized for pentium 1) whereas using an optimized
> version can improve performances by 50% !!!
You mean that the official binary was compiled with no optimization
at all ? (frankly I never tried it)
> (to do this, you'll need to
> modify the Makefile => ask for it when you'll be ready)
May I ?
Ok, go on, I'm ready ;-)
> There is no matter in compiling povray or something else even if you
> don't know how to do ! remember that you didn't know how to do at the
> begining, but you have learn it ! why wouldn't he be able to learn it too ?
I simply made a very straightforward assumption: if someone makes
such an obvious mistake (as seen in the initial post), it is very likely
that he/she will have lots of trouble to compile povray at all, given
that the build system in the source of 3.50c is far from being complete
is known to have serious flaws (especially if you try to use it on anything
but a Linux box, which is actually the case here).
Yet I admit that trying is indeed a good way to learn things, but
it'll most likely take quite some time. This is not necessarily what Jong
is asking for (just a guess from his posts).
But I should not make assumptions anyway, that's not a good idea
in general, and when programming in particular :-)
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> the build system in the source of 3.50c is far from being complete
> is known to have serious flaws (especially if you try to use it on anything
> but a Linux box, which is actually the case here).
I should not only avoid making assumptions, but also read again
before posting. So, add an "and" at the end of the first line, and
replace "actually" by "fortunately not" :-)
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Calimet wrote:
>> very very slow (optimized for pentium 1) whereas using an optimized
>> version can improve performances by 50% !!!
>
>
> You mean that the official binary was compiled with no optimization
> at all ? (frankly I never tried it)
There has been an early 3.5 official binary version compiled without
optimization but the current official version is compiled with -O3. And
as you also observed some time ago the speed advantage with using more
fancy (processor specific and possibly faulty) optimizations is
marginal. There is absolutely no need to compile POV-Ray from source
just for the speed advantage (to actually save time this way, even if
you have experience compiling programs yourself, you will have to render
quite a lot of very slow scenes).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gRRosminet wrote:
> As config files are cached by ./configure, you may need to completly
> delete the directory and re-extract the archive.
>
No. Juste delete "config.cache" can do the job...
--
http://tth.vaboofer.com/Cette/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Nicolas Calimet wrote:
>
>>> very very slow (optimized for pentium 1) whereas using an optimized
>>> version can improve performances by 50% !!!
>>
>>
>>
>> You mean that the official binary was compiled with no optimization
>> at all ? (frankly I never tried it)
>
>
> There has been an early 3.5 official binary version compiled without
> optimization but the current official version is compiled with -O3. And
> as you also observed some time ago the speed advantage with using more
> fancy (processor specific and possibly faulty) optimizations is
> marginal. There is absolutely no need to compile POV-Ray from source
> just for the speed advantage (to actually save time this way, even if
> you have experience compiling programs yourself, you will have to render
> quite a lot of very slow scenes).
>
> Christoph
>
If you take a look at the generated Makefile, povray is compiled with
march=i586. This is why the official binary is so slow : it doesn't take
advantage of SSE/SSE2/3DNow2 instructions which are really faster than
standards ones and which can be executed at the same time than other
standard ones.
If you have an athlon thunderbird and compile povray with -march=athlon
instead of -march=i586, you'll get a povray running about 30% faster
than the original one. So I let you imagine what you can get with a
athlon xp or pentium 4 optimized version.
>> (to do this, you'll need to modify the Makefile => ask for it when
you'll be ready)
> May I ?
> Ok, go on, I'm ready
on a clean extraction, you can change this parameters just after the
./configure : edit the Makefile and look for the line that begin with
CFLAGS. The mcpu=i586 and march=i586 options can be replaced by the ones
corresponding to your computer (i686, athlon, pentium3, athlon-xp,
pentium4 ... take a look at gcc man page).
the CXXFLAGS line should be replaced by CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
That's all !
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gRRosminet wrote:
>
> If you take a look at the generated Makefile, povray is compiled with
> march=i586. This is why the official binary is so slow : it doesn't take
> advantage of SSE/SSE2/3DNow2 instructions which are really faster than
> standards ones and which can be executed at the same time than other
> standard ones.
> If you have an athlon thunderbird and compile povray with -march=athlon
> instead of -march=i586, you'll get a povray running about 30% faster
> than the original one. So I let you imagine what you can get with a
> athlon xp or pentium 4 optimized version.
No, i am pretty sure when you get such results you have not made a
serious comparison. When you come up with such numbers it would be
adequate to back them up with some benchmark results and offer the used
executables for others to verify.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 01 May. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> povray is compiled with
> march=i586. This is why the official binary is so slow : it doesn't take
> advantage of SSE/SSE2/3DNow2 instructions which are really faster than
> standards ones
To take advantage of such specialized instructions, you have to
make your program _use_ them, which is not the case in povray because its
code is mostly doing (double precision) floating-point arithmetics.
> If you have an athlon thunderbird and compile povray with -march=athlon
> instead of -march=i586, you'll get a povray running about 30% faster
> than the original one.
Please report results of running benchmark.ini with a version
compiled using -march=i586 and another with -march=athlon, using the
same compiler of course.
> [snip]
> the CXXFLAGS line should be replaced by CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
> That's all !
"Thanks for teaching" (private joke) :-)
- NC
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
