Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o>
To: camio@×××××.com
Cc: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some suggestions
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 21:56:16
Message-Id: 1062885267.20020.21.camel@vertigo
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Some suggestions by David Sankel
1 On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 15:45, David Sankel wrote:
2 > I was afraid that it wouldn't be clear what I meant by this. I am not
3 > suggesting that all files could be automatically overwritten, only files
4 > that were not modified from the default by the user. For example the
5 > file:
6 >
7 > /etc/X11/chooser.sh
8 >
9 > was never changed by a given user on a given system. It is the default for
10 > the version they have. When a revision to the default is discovered, the
11 > system will flag that file as being one that the user hasn't specialized.
12 > In etc-update, there could be an option to update all flagged files
13 > automatically. Does that make more sense?
14
15 I think this is a great idea. I am tired of having to update files
16 which I haven't even touched simply because they have changed a little
17 since the last merge.
18
19 > You are absolutely correct. Having something simple like 20/24 (currently
20 > working on package XXX) is probably the best such a progress bar could do.
21 > If the compilation does break, and that has been very rare in my
22 > experience, the program could output the log of that failed compile for
23 > inspection. I think this feature, being only an option, would be an
24 > enhancement that wouldn't remove any features you are interested in.
25
26 This is somewhat done now via the xterm titles. I personally find it
27 annoying and turn it off. Having a progress bar for portage would annoy
28 me to no end since as a developer I like to see what is going on with my
29 compiles. If it were implemented as a FEATURE, I would have no problem
30 with it. I also don't think it would be useful at all except in the
31 case of merging multiple ebuilds at once.
32
33 > I suggest they be left at whatever the non-source based distributions
34 > leave them at. Perhaps I am misinformed about how much improvement one
35 > gets with aggressive optimization flags. Could you point me somewhere in
36 > the right direction?
37
38 http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue88/piszcz.html
39
40 Quite simply, test it yourself. The best way to test is to use a x86
41 GRP CD and install Gentoo. This is approximately equivalent to the
42 build flags on other binary distributions. Run a bunch of benchmarks.
43 Next reinstall the same machine using aggressive CFLAGS and run the same
44 benchmarks. You'll see quite a dramatic difference in many things. The
45 real thing is to realize what could possibly change by optimization.
46 Binary size is usually larger with optimized code, since it is designed
47 for fast execution rather than binary size. For example, a I/O
48 benchmark would be generally worthless to test the speed increases of
49 optimization, since you would be limited much more by the hardware than
50 the code itself.
51
52 --
53 Chris Gianelloni
54 Developer, Gentoo Linux
55 Games Team
56
57 Is your power animal a penguin?

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature