1 |
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Johannes Kimmel <johannes.kimmel@×××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> On 09/30/2010 12:58 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> Heya, |
5 |
>> I noticed that my firefox-bin is a lot smaller in memory footprint |
6 |
>> compared to ordinary gentoo-compiled firefox. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> Does anyone know what compiler flags upstream applies to their |
9 |
>> firefox? I turned off the custom-optimization USE on mine assuming |
10 |
>> that it would follow upstream optimizations, but maybe it doesn't. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I thought firefox-bin is a 32-bit binary. If you are using a 64-bit gentoo |
14 |
> it is likely you self compiled version is a lot bigger. |
15 |
|
16 |
That's right, firefox-bin is a 32bit binary, but I didn't expect the |
17 |
Virt size to have a nearly 3x difference (855MB vs 355MB) when loading |
18 |
the same tabs and running the same profile, or the Res size to have |
19 |
nearly double (200MB vs 130MB). |
20 |
|
21 |
Is this a speed vs size tradeoff thing? Because I noticed that my |
22 |
compiled firefox is doing something like 10-30 points higher in the |
23 |
google v8 benchmark than firefox-bin. But that's relatively a small |
24 |
improvement, I think my system would do better overall with the giant |
25 |
memory use reduction. |
26 |
|
27 |
Or is there an issue with having both firefoxes using the same profile |
28 |
dirs (not at the same time though). |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [ ] social |
32 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [ ] no |
33 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [ ] none |