On Sat, 06 May 2006, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> older machines) but also with amd64 (which I doubt there are any 64mb
> AMD64 systems) and ia64 (which I very much doubt there are any 64mb
Which have BIG caches, and thus might get sensible speedups if -Os manages
to make the entire thing fit insid
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 04:44:23PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Initialiy this was for people with older computers, not a 2 GHz amd64
> with 2GB ram. Think P90 with 64Mb or slightly better.
>
> We are not talking "generally" here but "specific". Specific to
> certain hardware.
OP mention
On 5/3/06, Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just to see the effects of compiling programs with -Os, I tried to get
the sources for firefox 1.5 from testing (which is what I use by
default) and compiled it with -Os, instead of -O2. The program was much
more responsive, with less use of swa
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:02:57AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
>> For Etch and Sid, it is probably a good idea to use -Os instead of -O2 at
>> least on the bigger arches (ia32, ia64, amd64, etc), as we can probably
>> trust gcc not t
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:02:57AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> > For Etch and Sid, it is probably a good idea to use -Os instead of -O2 at
> > least on the bigger arches (ia32, ia64, amd64, etc), as we can probably
> > trust gcc not to screw up.
>
> I
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:54:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If gcc generally generates faster code with -Os than -O2, then isn't
> that a gcc bug, in that the optimizations enabled by -O2 are incorrectly
> picked?
The problem is, "faster" is not a well-defined term. Faster when? I can
w
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:02:57AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> For Etch and Sid, it is probably a good idea to use -Os instead of -O2 at
> least on the bigger arches (ia32, ia64, amd64, etc), as we can probably
> trust gcc not to screw up.
If gcc generally generates faster code wi
"Joe Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Rogério Brito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi there.
>
> I think that this may be interesting to anybody that has to work with
> computers that are not the latest/more recent as most people in richer
> countries seem to
Just out of curiosity, what is the Debian Way to change compiler
settings like -Ox and -march? Can this be done with command line
options when using higher level tools like 'apt-get -b source '
(with more options specified here, obviously)? Or does one download
the source .deb, hack something
On Wed, 03 May 2006, Rogério Brito wrote:
> One way to mitigate the memory consumption is to, among other things,
> compile packages with optimization of GCC set to -Os, instead of -O2,
What -Os is likely to give you is much better cache locality, which might
make the code run that much faster on
Hi there.
I think that this may be interesting to anybody that has to work with
computers that are not the latest/more recent as most people in richer
countries seem to have.
It seems to be that a good amount of people upgrade their computers in a
regular basis and, then, don't notice how things
You might try compililing the source by hand. Go into
/usr/src/exim, type `./configure` then `make` then `make
install` (if the first make worked). You still might have
problems, but often that works just fine.
If that doesn't work you might try downloading and compiling
the original exim source f
Hi
I have Debian 2.2 R3 installed which comes with exim version 3.12 I do not
want ot upgrade my base system to testing or unstable as the server is a
production server and I am not sure what problems may arise. So I setup my
apt sources to have deb-src for testing and got the source for exim 3.
13 matches
Mail list logo
