From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19867 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 13:22:50 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 13:22:50 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C52PR-0004wq-Sm for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:22:49 +0000 Received: (qmail 17070 invoked by uid 89); 8 Sep 2004 13:22:49 +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 79 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 13:22:49 +0000 Message-ID: <413F0813.5030308@cryos.net> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:24:35 +0100 From: "Marcus D. Hanwell" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040818) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <33333.10.0.0.51.1094638559.squirrel@10.0.0.51> <413EF8CE.7080209@gentoo.ro> In-Reply-To: <413EF8CE.7080209@gentoo.ro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at palladium.cryos.net Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Do we want optimal performance? X-Archives-Salt: abc2239a-d238-4ae1-97ef-292f1af4711b X-Archives-Hash: fe282ad22c995501c3807a3159224f2d Alin Nastac wrote: > Klavs Klavsen wrote: > >> The end result should be, that Gentoo automagically selects the optimal >> CFLAGS (in performance and stability - perhaps with some optimizations >> flagged as "unstable" so people can select "optimize for performance" >> vs. >> "optimize for stability") depending on the X, Y and Z from above. >> >> > If you don't want to give gentooers a chance to set whatever they want > in CHOST,CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS it would be a mistake. Not everyone want > the greatest opimization for their processor! For example, I use on my > servers optimizations for pentium2 no matter what processor I have on > that particular computer. 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? 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. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list