[gentoo-amd64] gcc4 CFLAGS Was: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone?

2006-09-15 Thread Duncan
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:45:28 -0400: Duncan wrote: [snip] Hmm - no -ftree-vectorize? Care to comment on that? I hear that it can be buggy with a few packages, but I'm guessing it is worth having in there in

Re: [gentoo-amd64] gcc4 CFLAGS Was: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone?

2006-09-15 Thread felix
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 04:47:14PM +, Duncan wrote: I'm unclear as to what vectorization means as used here. My understanding of vector is as a synonym for line, thus implying loop unrolling of some form or another, which will increase size. As I explained in the grandparent, I believe

Re: [gentoo-amd64] gcc4 CFLAGS Was: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone?

2006-09-15 Thread Olivier Crete
On Fri, 2006-15-09 at 10:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 04:47:14PM +, Duncan wrote: I'm unclear as to what vectorization means as used here. My understanding of vector is as a synonym for line, thus implying loop unrolling of some form or another, which

[gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone?

2006-09-15 Thread Duncan
Mark Knecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:43:19 -0700: Now, you are very adept at this. You're explanations make sense to the level I've considered them. (Not very far right now...) Main questions: Adept, perhaps, but don't take my

[gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc4 CFLAGS Was: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone?

2006-09-15 Thread Duncan
Olivier Crete [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:18:49 -0400: On Fri, 2006-15-09 at 10:08 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 04:47:14PM +, Duncan wrote: I'm unclear as to what vectorization means as used here. My

[gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone?

2006-09-15 Thread Duncan
Mark Knecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:06:47 -0700: On 9/14/06, Mark Knecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm just curious whether anyone besides me is noticing their machine feeling somewhat sluggish since doing the gcc-4.1 upgrade?

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: gcc4 CFLAGS Was: gcc 4.1 upgrade - bad desktop interactivity anyone?

2006-09-15 Thread Richard Freeman
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Duncan wrote: I was somewhat aware of that, but hadn't considered the effect on loops, and don't understand it enough to be able explain it as you did, nor enough to grok why if it's so much more efficient, gcc doesn't do it by default at least

Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Problems emerging Gnome

2006-09-15 Thread Drake Donahue
- Original Message - From: Daniele Salatti [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 2:44 AM Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Problems emerging Gnome Drake Donahue wrote: What was the source for your install? Minimal, Universal, LiveCD,