From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S0h02-0000vR-CE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:18:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77424E0D5C; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp0.epfl.ch (smtp0.epfl.ch [128.178.224.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE7B7E0CDF for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:17:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 29780 invoked by uid 107); 23 Feb 2012 22:17:28 -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV Received: from 80-218-102-53.dclient.hispeed.ch (HELO epfl.ch) (80.218.102.53) (authenticated) by smtp0.epfl.ch (AngelmatoPhylax SMTP proxy) with ESMTPA; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:17:30 +0100 Received: by epfl.ch (nbSMTP-1.00) for uid 1000 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) wongwwy@member.ams.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:21:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:21:39 +0100 From: Willie WY Wong To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox-10.0.1 fails to compile on x86 Message-ID: <20120223222139.GA8533@Gee-Mi-Ni> References: <20120222002227.GA3081@ca.inter.net> <20120223102240.GB6656@Gee-Mi-Ni.epfl.ch> <201202231044.51216.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <20120223202429.GB19989@Gee-Mi-Ni> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 7e9e4eb5-d4b3-4010-a4f8-5fb32238eec1 X-Archives-Hash: ab394c6a70bc4e1944558353d43ea475 On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:43:47PM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos Chantziaras squawked: > If you think it's worth the hassle, why not. Personally, the only > reason I would build from source on such a slow system is to get a > 64-bit build, since the -bin package seems to be 32-bit. That means the > GUI is going to look like ass on AMD64 (due to lack of 32-bit versions > of the Gtk theme engines.) Actually, why is it that upstream does not provide 64bit binaries? (It always bothers me to see my wife's Windows 7 machines running a copy of firefox marked, in parenthesis, 32 bit.) > If you're on 32-bit to begin with, and you're building with "pgo" > enabled, then my guess is that the performance compared to the -bin > package is about the same. But as I said previously, this can be easily > tested by running a browser benchmark, such as this: > > http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org > > You could compare the results of the -bin package vs your self-compiled one. I should definitely do that. W -- Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton