Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Greg Bur <greg.bur@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone?
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:40:53
Message-Id: 976cb44f0609150039x103145d8pca7afb12d36a8a95@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone? by Mark Knecht
1 On 9/14/06, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote:
2 >
3 > On 9/14/06, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
4 > > "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> posted
5 > > 5bdc1c8b0609140715t2c135c9q50bf7ff8cbf1d82e@××××××××××.com, excerpted
6 > > below, on Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:15:42 -0700:
7 >
8 > 2) What about building the kernel? How do the standard
9 >
10 > make && make modules_install
11 >
12 > command make any use of the flags in /etc/make.conf?
13
14
15 I believe you have to modify the Makefile in /usr/src/linux to enable
16 additional optimizations. I have noticed in recent kernels that there is an
17 option to compile using -Os as well however I have not used that yet simply
18 because I try to play it safe, especially with my kernels. I would be
19 interested in hearing feedback as to which "safe" optimizations can be used
20 when building a kernel.
21
22 This machine is a fairly standard desktop running Xorg-7, Gnome and
23 > just a few apps most of the time. However I am an audio oriented
24
25
26 I share your concern here as well. One app in particular that comes to mind
27 is lyx which in the past has not gotten along well with heavy optimization,
28 at least for me. Granted this was nearly two years ago when I, like many
29 newcomers to Gentoo, got a bit ridiculous with the CFLAGS. Duncan's post
30 was very educational and has made me reconsider trying additional
31 optimizations again. I am definitely interested in hearing recommendations
32 for proceeding even though like Mark I recently completed a rebuild of my
33 system recently. I am looking forward to the continuation of this thread.
34
35 Regards,
36
37 Greg