[gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-02 Thread Eric Marchionni
hi what about that? http://articles.linmagau.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=227 cheers, eric -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-02 Thread Stroller
On Nov 2, 2003, at 1:24 pm, Eric Marchionni wrote: what about that? http://articles.linmagau.org/modules.php? op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=227 It's not new & it's already been discredited empirically. The author has posted here some time ago. See http://tinyurl.com

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-02 Thread William Kenworthy
There was actually a lot of misinformation and pure rubbish spread on this list about that (my favourite was the guy with the distcc farm who proudly boasted that the farm would compile anything faster than a single debian or mandrake system could do so gentoo must be better!) - unlike him I was p

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-02 Thread SN
"Eric Marchionni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 2:24 PM Subject: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance > hi > > what about that? > http://articles.linmagau.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-02 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 03 November 2003 07:13, William Kenworthy wrote: (B> Also see here for another go which looked a bit better for gentoo, but (B> brought up a whole lot of factors no-one expected. (B> (B> "http://www.linmagau.org/" issue 9 (B (BYou made a small mistake in your description of CFLAGS

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-02 Thread Bill Kenworthy
Thanks, your correct. :) I should have checked that, instead of relying on my memory! BillK On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 08:53, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Monday 03 November 2003 07:13, William Kenworthy wrote: > > Also see here for another go which looked a bit better for gentoo, but > > brought up a wh

RE: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-03 Thread Van Eps, Nathan D. (James Tower)
re interested in. Compare the differences in the .s files. Make sure you save the foo.s that you are interested to compare against... :-) >-Original Message- >From: SN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:26 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re:

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-03 Thread Peter Ruskin
On Monday 03 Nov 2003 16:12, Van Eps, Nathan D. (James Tower) wrote: > . I wanted to make sure, so I emailed > gcc-help email address. Someone emailed me the following procedure to > determine exactly what flags are getting set for the different "O" > settings. > > > To figure out what the differen

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-03 Thread Martin LORANG
Le Lundi 3 Novembre 2003 00:26, SN a écrit : > -fomit-frame-pointer > Don't keep the frame pointer in a register for functions that don't need > one. This avoids the instructions to save, set up and restore frame > pointers; it also makes an extra register available in many functions. It > also mak

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-03 Thread Stroller
On Nov 2, 2003, at 10:13 pm, William Kenworthy wrote: There was actually a lot of misinformation and pure rubbish spread on this list about that ... I was present and can say what was done. In that case, debian and Mandrake WERE faster than gentoo - the figures are there in black and white. Ther

Re: [gentoo-user] bad gentoo performance

2003-11-03 Thread William Kenworthy
Fact: take 3 distros, install to the reccomended settings (as far as is practical) and see which is faster. Gentoo was slowest. At the time (is it still the case?) -O3 was being reccomended for gentoo in general, celerons in particular (was a few months back now!) This flag has a rather drastic