public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Per Wigren <wigren@home.se>
To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposition for stage3.
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:41:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200206181841.41009.wigren@home.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200206181822.19840.verwilst@gentoo.org>

-fomit-frame-pointer often gives a noticable speedup also...



Tuesday 18 June 2002 18.22 skrev Bart Verwilst:
> On Tuesday 18 June 2002 17:52, Dan Naumov wrote:
> || Hello.
>
> Hi!
>
> || I just thought I'd share an idea I had about stage3. I think it would be
> || nice if it was usable for systems older then i686 and if it used -O1 or
> || -O2 instead of -O3. The reasons are simple:
> ||
> || The majority of the people who actually want to use stage3 do so because
> || of the time it takes to build the ENTIRE system from scratch. This
> || mainly applies to old PC's, which are obviously older then i686. I've
> || seen quite a few people on #gentoo complain that it is a major pain in
> || the ass to install Gentoo on an old system.
>
> Gentoo 1.3a is already available for both i586 and i686, and i think 1.3b
> will be available for even more archs.. not 100% sure which ones though..
> Maybe i486, for the very low-end gateways out there :o) Others are k6,
> athlon, ...
>
> || As for -O1 / -O2 instead of the default -O3, it's just that some people
> || want to be "safe". I've had all kinds of weirnesses and unexplainable
> || crashes due to software compiled with -O3 and no other optimisations.
> || These problems always went away after a recompile with -O2. And I am
> || pretty sure I am not the only one who thinks that way, because many
> || people I know got "burned" when utilising heavy opts.
>
> Well, i maintain the gentoo 1.3 series of tarballs, and i think -O3 is what
> most of the people who want to download the tarballs want. -O3 is stable
> for the base system as far as i know, and the majority wants -O3.. I think
> if you want other flags than the ones in the tarball, just use stage2, and
> recompile it yourself.. At least that's my opinion on things.. IMHO -O3
> isn't all that crazy for general use.



  reply	other threads:[~2002-06-18 16:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-06-18 15:52 [gentoo-dev] Proposition for stage3 Dan Naumov
2002-06-18 16:22 ` Bart Verwilst
2002-06-18 16:41   ` Per Wigren [this message]
2002-06-18 18:48     ` Rufiao
2002-06-18 19:27       ` Per Wigren
2002-06-18 20:13       ` Prashanth Aditya Susarla
2002-06-18 21:38       ` Spider

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200206181841.41009.wigren@home.se \
    --to=wigren@home.se \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox