Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox-10.0.1 fails to compile on x86
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:35:45
Message-Id: 4F46DB1B.8050403@gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox-10.0.1 fails to compile on x86 by Nikos Chantziaras
1 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
2 > On 23/02/12 22:11, Dale wrote:
3 >> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
4 >>> On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
5 >>>> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
6 >>>>
7 >>>> The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building
8 >>>> from
9 >>>> source are constrained in resources to achieve this and have to
10 >>>> resort to
11 >>>> installing bin packages.
12 >>>
13 >>> I doubt that the bin package will be slower than the one compiled from
14 >>> source. I predict the reverse, in fact. The bin package will perform
15 >>> better.
16 >>>
17 >>> Why don't you test it with an online browser benchmark? You can
18 >>> quickpkg the current installed version, emerge the -bin version. You
19 >>> can later emerge -C the -bin version and emerge -K the one you
20 >>> quickpkg'ed.
21 >>
22 >> I try to avoid pre-compiled software for the opposite reason of what you
23 >> think. What makes you think that software designed and compiled to
24 >> utilize all the good parts of my system would run slower than a software
25 >> designed to run on any CPU/hardware out there? This is the first time I
26 >> ever saw anyone make this claim. Can you shed some light on this?
27 >
28 > Already did in my other post.
29 >
30 > Also, your assumption is wrong. Binary packages are not designed to run
31 > on any CPU and hardware out there. They are designed to run on specific
32 > architectures, and with a minimum requirement of some specific CPU.
33 > firefox-bin will certainly not run on a PPC or MIPS machine running
34 > Linux, for example.
35 >
36 >
37 >
38
39
40 Actually, I can install the same binaries on a AMD machine, a Intel
41 based machine and they work. Thing is, on my machine, I enable
42 MARCH=native and everything is compiled for my CPU. Since I have AMD,
43 they may not run or may be buggy if ran on a Intel machine. That's what
44 I have always been told. Have I been told the wrong thing for the last
45 8 or 9 years?
46
47 Am I right in reading as the rest is Firefox specific?
48
49 Dale
50
51 :-) :-)
52
53 --
54 I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
55 how you interpreted my words!
56
57 Miss the compile output? Hint:
58 EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-user] Re: Firefox-10.0.1 fails to compile on x86 Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de>