| 1 |
On 24/02/12 02:34, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 23/02/12 22:11, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>> The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building |
| 9 |
>>>>> from |
| 10 |
>>>>> source are constrained in resources to achieve this and have to |
| 11 |
>>>>> resort to |
| 12 |
>>>>> installing bin packages. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> I doubt that the bin package will be slower than the one compiled from |
| 15 |
>>>> source. I predict the reverse, in fact. The bin package will perform |
| 16 |
>>>> better. |
| 17 |
>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>> Why don't you test it with an online browser benchmark? You can |
| 19 |
>>>> quickpkg the current installed version, emerge the -bin version. You |
| 20 |
>>>> can later emerge -C the -bin version and emerge -K the one you |
| 21 |
>>>> quickpkg'ed. |
| 22 |
>>> |
| 23 |
>>> I try to avoid pre-compiled software for the opposite reason of what you |
| 24 |
>>> think. What makes you think that software designed and compiled to |
| 25 |
>>> utilize all the good parts of my system would run slower than a software |
| 26 |
>>> designed to run on any CPU/hardware out there? This is the first time I |
| 27 |
>>> ever saw anyone make this claim. Can you shed some light on this? |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> Already did in my other post. |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> Also, your assumption is wrong. Binary packages are not designed to run |
| 32 |
>> on any CPU and hardware out there. They are designed to run on specific |
| 33 |
>> architectures, and with a minimum requirement of some specific CPU. |
| 34 |
>> firefox-bin will certainly not run on a PPC or MIPS machine running |
| 35 |
>> Linux, for example. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Actually, I can install the same binaries on a AMD machine, a Intel |
| 42 |
> based machine and they work. Thing is, on my machine, I enable |
| 43 |
> MARCH=native and everything is compiled for my CPU. Since I have AMD, |
| 44 |
> they may not run or may be buggy if ran on a Intel machine. That's what |
| 45 |
> I have always been told. Have I been told the wrong thing for the last |
| 46 |
> 8 or 9 years? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
AMD and Intel are the same architecture: Intel. AMD makes |
| 49 |
Intel-compatible CPUs. Furthermore, the binary Mozilla provides |
| 50 |
requires targets a subset of CPUs; it certainly won't run on an 80386. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
The speed gains of building for specific submodels of CPUs might be |
| 53 |
there, but they're minimal. Benchmarks have shown (can't find the |
| 54 |
article, it was on Phoronix) that after -march=i686 you get diminishing |
| 55 |
returns. |
Archives