On 28 Mar 2000, at 17:04, Jonathan Heaney wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On 27 Mar 2000, at 11:15, Bill Caskey wrote: > > > > > 1. I'm running on a laptop with a 1.3 Gb hard drive and I want the system > > > as lean as possible. By compiling, I can optimize for a pentium and > > > eliminate the debug/exceptions code. Smaller footprint. > > > > Are you recompiling your entire Debian system, or just kde? Or might kde be > > your first step in recompiling? Are you recompiling from *.deb source > > packages > > and then recreating the deb binaries? > > > > Reason I ask: although I've just bought a new laptop, with lots of hard > > drive > > space, I have wondered how the Debian binaries are compiled in general -- > > for > > some lowest common denominator of CPU (386? 486?), whereas gcc could > > possibly > > do much better with the right switches for the Pentiums (I,II,III). > > > > Problem is that the thought of recompiling *everything* is a big daunting, > > nevermind time consuming. However, for laptops, it should be worth it. And > > there's something inside me which says, "why aren't you taking full > > advantage > > of your hardware...?"
[snip] > Word on the street is compiling for 586/686 doesn't make that much of a > difference > > As you point out, it's a daunting task. If the above statement is accurate, a > pointless one too. I've heard this before, too, especially when gcc was so far behind the times. But when egcs was merged back I just assumed things were better. And I imagine there's not much in the way of optimizations for the Pentium III yet, either. Does anyone know how we can find out whether 586/686 compiling is worthwhile? Wouldn't it be at least worthwhile to recompile the kernel, the Xserver one uses, window manager (e.g., fvwm2, englightenment, etc.), and the desktop one uses (gnome/kde, etc.)? After that, if there's time/energy, what? Most highly used daemons? Web browser? Emacs? Kirk ---- Kirk Lowery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
