On 19/06/12 19:08, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Nicholas Bamber's message of 2012-06-19 08:35:29 -0700: >> I have tested with gcc-4.4 and it seems to work okay. So that is an option. >> > > We should do some general performance benchmarks with 4.4 vs. 4.7 before > we consider this option. It would be a shame to compromise the whole of > mysqld's performance just to improve SSL performance, as only a small > fraction of users actually make use of SSL and/or the encrypt functions. > > I think at this point I'm leaning toward TAOCRYPT_DISABLE_X86ASM on > i386 as the short term fix. If Oracle figures out the ASM issue and > can give us a patch for it soon, then we can apply that, but for now, > this seems the solution that penalizes the fewest users.
Assuming we don't just stick one of thumbs in the air, how would you plan to go about this? We could just compare the build times. We could add some timestamps to debian/rules so we can focus on the test part of the build. I don't think I have got much more stomach for any more testing than that as I have dealt with a fair few RC bugs over the past month. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
