From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20032 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 14:21:22 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 14:21:22 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C53K6-0006mm-De for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:21:22 +0000 Received: (qmail 799 invoked by uid 89); 8 Sep 2004 14:21:21 +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 20542 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 14:21:21 +0000 Message-ID: <33543.10.0.0.51.1094653278.squirrel@10.0.0.51> In-Reply-To: <413F0813.5030308@cryos.net> References: <33333.10.0.0.51.1094638559.squirrel@10.0.0.51> <413EF8CE.7080209@gentoo.ro> <413F0813.5030308@cryos.net> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:21:18 +0200 (CEST) From: "Klavs Klavsen" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at enableit.dk Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do we want optimal performance? X-Archives-Salt: ce1c30fd-b010-4e8b-acf6-5e7b9fe231ea X-Archives-Hash: da834d8bd09ffeb8007d4d18e8990d8e Marcus D. Hanwell said: > Alin Nastac wrote: [SNIP] > People could still have the choice to set whatever blanket optimisations > they want, or even override the default C_FLAGS and CXXFLAGS as in > package.use etc. Wouldn't this allow us to find optimal CFLAGS etc for a > subset of the packages in Gentoo, and set default CFLAGS which could > then be overridden? > exactly. > I for one would be in favour of this. It could be a gradual process, may > be added to profiles for different archs. With cascading profiles you > could choose the profile with package specific optimisation, or a more > generic profile with no package specific optimisations. > > Not a Gentoo dev, but I for one think this is a great idea. I have seen > this mentioned before, and I do believe that for certain packages this > would be most beneficial. For other packages there may never be much > point. > Glad I'm not the only one then :) I do realise there wouldn't be much point in doing this flag-optimization for every package - but I'm sure everybody could benefit greatly from this for servers, with MySQL, PostgreSQL, apache etc. etc. Would be nice with if this resulted in a set of optimal CFLAGS (as fast as possible, without stability problems) and perhaps some performance CFLAGS (with perhaps some stability problems) for these packages (for each CPU-type) - so people know what they are doing. It would in esssense be a record of "automated performance testing numbers" with "unstable CFLAGS added, if not detected with automated performance testing, then added via bugzilla. IMHO a very good start would be with tests for the major serverpackages (as they are the easiest to do test-suites fore - and most likely we can already find test-suites for these) and then go from there. To most, they won't care if bzip2 is a little slower - but they would care, if their LAMP setup was quicker for the same buck :) -- Regards, Klavs Klavsen, GSEC - kl@vsen.dk - http://www.vsen.dk PGP: 7E063C62/2873 188C 968E 600D D8F8 B8DA 3D3A 0B79 7E06 3C62 "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." --Henry Spencer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list