From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30021 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 19:54:35 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 19:54:35 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C58WY-0000mp-Iy for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:54:34 +0000 Received: (qmail 17198 invoked by uid 89); 8 Sep 2004 19:54:33 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 29546 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 19:54:33 +0000 From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:54:25 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <33333.10.0.0.51.1094638559.squirrel@10.0.0.51> <1094667618.17323.74.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <32927.10.0.0.51.1094670662.squirrel@10.0.0.51> In-Reply-To: <32927.10.0.0.51.1094670662.squirrel@10.0.0.51> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1322693.BXJa7efByE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200409082154.31736.pauldv@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do we want optimal performance? X-Archives-Salt: 2c0335d5-04d9-411d-b441-c7fbfa7f2b05 X-Archives-Hash: 12cd65244c2d1d24b24572f6c6142f06 --nextPart1322693.BXJa7efByE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 08 September 2004 21:11, Klavs Klavsen wrote: > Chris Gianelloni said: > [SNIP] > > > Gentoo is not all about performance. While many of our users want to > > squeeze the every drop of performance out of their systems, many use > > Gentoo for any number of other reasons such as our philosophy, our > > community, the manageability of portage, or even because they think > > Larry the Cow just owns. > > hehe. I totally agree. I choose Gentoo for the flexibility, for instance > in getting the programversions I want to use - except I'm sad that > gcc-versions get phased out too quickly IMHO, so I can't easily choose to > stay with an "old" gcc like 3.2.2 - without running into packages I > suddenly can't upgrade automatically, because they depend on a newer GCC, > which I can see no reason for them to do. Most applications should not explicitly depend on a specific version of the= =20 compiler. There are however some serious bugs in certain compiler versions= =20 that show up in certain complex applications (like openoffice). Those bugs= =20 are sometimes a reason to stop support for that particular version (althoug= h=20 not using -march=3Dpentium4 stops most 3.2.x family problems) > > You are probably right - especially when I'm told that gcc-3.5 has great > profiling capabilities (GIMPLE - whatever that is :) - which I agree would > be the better solution (so people can easily optimize their machine - > doing profiles for their usage). According to wikipedia and the gcc website it is an intermediate machine=20 independent language that is used for optimization. > The idea would ofcourse be that, only the "obvious" programs would be > tested - but if profiling were implemented/possible with gcc-3.5 and > portage easily - I'm fairly certain that would be of more value (would > that also help select the right CFLAGS ?) Easy profiling mainly shows where bottlenecks are (not the subtle ones that= =20 involve the cpu cache for example, for that you might want to try the=20 valgrind cachegrind module) Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart1322693.BXJa7efByE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBP2N3bKx5DBjWFdsRAjvjAKDWBrF3ZsGJYSYq6TKiP2enxyt/VACg2uqc kBV5ZBMvEFk4l9/PbZPg/F8= =xv0d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1322693.BXJa7efByE--