On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 12:59:16PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
>
> > Is the evaluation order of GCC options properly specified, i.e. is there
> > a guarantee that -Os overrides the previous -O2
>
> Yes.
>
> (From the manual:
>
> "If you use multiple -O option
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Is the evaluation order of GCC options properly specified, i.e. is there
> a guarantee that -Os overrides the previous -O2
Yes.
(From the manual:
"If you use multiple -O options, with or without level
numbers, the last such option is the one that is e
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:50:47AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> >> It's perhaps ugly, but DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-Os works fine for me.
> >
> > Why would it be ugly? I think that's the correct interface to change the
>
[Raphael Hertzog]
> Because they care about the integrity of their system? We de not
> want to make it easy to corrupt your dpkg database.
Your comment do not make sense to me. I fail to understand how those
caring about the integrity of their system during the dpkg run would
use --force-unsafe-i
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I would expect these users to also want the extra performance gained
> by dropping the left behind fsyncs()? Why should this use case want
> the remaining fsync()s in place?
Because they care about the integrity of their system? We de not want to
Thank you for the quick reply. I wish you a happy new year. :)
[Raphael Hertzog]
> This is an option that we wish it did not exist.
OK. Still do not explain to me in what situation or use case it is
useful drop fsync() for the package files while still using fsync() on
/var/lib/dpkg/updates and
Hi,
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [ Mike Hommey ]
> > While this is stricly true, there are still two fsync()s occuring on each
> > package unpack, making the whole thing still slow when installing many
> > packages at a time.
> >
> > These happen for /var/lib/dpkg/updates and
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> The users of --force-unsafe-io seem to be those that
[...]
In retrospect, introducing --force-unsafe-io was probably a mistake.
Making sure to always call a wrapper function that behaves just like
fsync() but can be disabled would be a maintenance burden for almost
no
[ Mike Hommey ]
> While this is stricly true, there are still two fsync()s occuring on each
> package unpack, making the whole thing still slow when installing many
> packages at a time.
>
> These happen for /var/lib/dpkg/updates and /var/lib/dpkg/tmp.ci.
[ Raphael Hertzog ]
> This is on purpose
9 matches
Mail list logo
