On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:53:38 +0600 Rashif Ray Rahman <sc...@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 2 June 2014 18:56, Yamakaky <yamak...@yamaworld.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> I believe when the decision was made it was simply based on the fact
> >> that being able to share is worth more for the community than local
> >> optimization.
> >
> > PKGBUILDs and packages from repositories have to be portable, but it's
> > not a requirement for self-build AUR packages. Who shares binary
> > packages from AUR ?
>
> Anybody can share binary packages that they build off of AUR
> buildscripts -- that is exactly what we allow by making these flags
> the default.
>
> With local optimization, users end up spending time rebuilding. You
> may build a bunch of packages and decide to share them from a repo, or
> you may want help from somebody else with runtime problems that you're
> having.
>
> There is no statistical backing here AFAIK, so if you feel strongly
> about it, you are welcome to approach the pacman developers in order
> to reach a new conclusion.
>
Remember also that gcc optimization flags make difference only for programs
which run in or close to realtime. Examples include lapack/arpack, blender,
or your own HPC code. For everything else advanced optimization via -march= and
-O? flags yields no measurable performance increase.
Even if you build e.g. thunderbird using -O1 for a generic x86_64 machine,
you'll not notice any slowdown compared to an "optimized" build (actually,
that's how I build all my local packages).
Cheers,
--
Leonid Isaev
GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4
C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
