| 1 |
On 23/02/12 22:24, Willie WY Wong wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:55:07PM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos Chantziaras squawked: |
| 3 |
>> The PGO optimized build that Mozilla is shipping. You can also build |
| 4 |
>> with PGO from source, but that means building FF *twice* in a row (by |
| 5 |
>> enabling the "pgo" USE flag). I doubt that with the old laptop anyone |
| 6 |
>> is building FF twice with PGO, and that means that the -bin package |
| 7 |
>> should be faster. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Call me a sadist, but on my netbook I did build FF with +pgo. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I figured, if I was going to let it build overnight and more, why not? |
| 12 |
> :) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If you think it's worth the hassle, why not. Personally, the only |
| 15 |
reason I would build from source on such a slow system is to get a |
| 16 |
64-bit build, since the -bin package seems to be 32-bit. That means the |
| 17 |
GUI is going to look like ass on AMD64 (due to lack of 32-bit versions |
| 18 |
of the Gtk theme engines.) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If you're on 32-bit to begin with, and you're building with "pgo" |
| 21 |
enabled, then my guess is that the performance compared to the -bin |
| 22 |
package is about the same. But as I said previously, this can be easily |
| 23 |
tested by running a browser benchmark, such as this: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You could compare the results of the -bin package vs your self-compiled one. |
Archives