Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [was cross-compile attempt] 32bit chroot

[Mick]

On Tuesday 02 Aug 2016 00:33:57 waltdnes@××××××××.org wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 01:11:24AM +0200, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote
>
> > Does it make sense to compile your own versions of these packages
> > and then binary merge, when portage already contains binary ebuilds
> > for these packages? (firefox-bin/libreoffice-bin/google-chrome)
>
>   I've got an underpowered netbook that needs all the help it can get.
> I build in the VM with...
>
> -O2 -march=bonnell -mfpmath=sse -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
> -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
>
>   Even older desktops benefit.  One case in point is my former Dell
> D530 Core2 Duo.  When Gentoo had been installed, it could not keep up
> with the slowest stream of NHL Gamecenter Live.  Everything was generic
> x86 with SSE2 thrown in, from the stage3.  After re-emerging system and
> world optimized for the machine's cpu, it could keep up with not only
> the lowest quality stream, but a medium-quality stream.  So yes, it
> helps.
>
>   From http://gentoo-en.vfose.ru/wiki/Safe_Cflags#-march.3Dnative to
> find out exactly what your cpu is, run the following command on the
> *TARGET* machine...
>
> gcc -march=native -E -v - </dev/null 2>&1 | grep cc1
>
>   Ignore the flag output, which may be over-optimistic.  Just look at
> what it says for "-march=".

Yes, I've had similar experiences here with own built binaries being faster 
than generic *-bin packages offered by portage.  The 32bit box in question is 
running a single core Pentium4 ... I could bet it feels slower than my 
AppleTV1 with its 1.00GHz Pentium-M.  :-)
-- 
Regards,
Mick