| 1 |
On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 20:13:50 GMT Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/12/2017 21:10, Mick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I discovered that building Chromium with gcc-6.4.0 is taking an |
| 4 |
> > inordinately> |
| 5 |
> > longer time on a laptop with 1st gen i7 and 4G of RAM, e.g.: |
| 6 |
[snip...] |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Pure gut feel and intuition and nothing else leads me to look in two places: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You use -march=native on the i7 so I assume the same on the Core2? Those |
| 11 |
> are rather different processors, and google is fond of optimizing deeply |
| 12 |
> for specific cases (common to all browsers I think). You'd have to ask a |
| 13 |
> chromium hacker but I'd say the odds are good there are serious |
| 14 |
> optimizations for i7 that stress your compiler out muchly. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yes, I run -march=native on both. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Add to that your i7 is RAM-constrained so you compensate with swap, |
| 19 |
> which is easily 50,000 times slower with sucky latency. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Yes, it's ridiculously slow! :-( |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> When you use a |
| 25 |
> disk as RAM, performance tanks. Well, usually it causes a cascade effect |
| 26 |
> and stuff blows up, but if it completes it will have done so slowly. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> If you at all can, shove lots more RAM in that i7. These days RAM is |
| 29 |
> cheap and it's always by first performance tweak, then SSD. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I know that compiling in RAM would be done in a fraction of the time. The |
| 32 |
thing is, this is a 8 year old laptop and I am resisting throwing good money |
| 33 |
after bad. I had a quick look a few months ago and good quality memory will |
| 34 |
cost me around £60. With the battery shot and the keyboard on its way out, |
| 35 |
I'd rather put the money towards more memory for a newer PC, sometime in the |
| 36 |
next year. ;-) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Regards, |
| 40 |
Mick |
Archives