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 1S0f4W-0002FF-BF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:15:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E71B7E0ECE; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30ACBE0EA7 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:12:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggnv5 with SMTP id v5so993916ggn.40 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:12:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rdalek1967@gmail.com designates 10.236.145.230 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.236.145.230; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rdalek1967@gmail.com designates 10.236.145.230 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rdalek1967@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=rdalek1967@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.236.145.230]) by 10.236.145.230 with SMTP id p66mr5745600yhj.27.1330027922775 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:12:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=S4aKdJx446xV6BSZA6ISbwrZmlRTK8FA46uMAAW+Gmo=; b=m/rbIvjtHoz5ZBnmSwaTs1sHIygriORIOVjRdApxtyp8AhxTBhmthTF6scjcH2opbG tk/6bnYyTgp8U3o9rmbdS3Xi7HY1REh8h42gol/XPRe9MtASpqulH5jqNmry1QXP/5Dy nRZf3obPIMmLq3O8VM0tLwGUl2vQ2xwz+jRWQ= Received: by 10.236.145.230 with SMTP id p66mr4640596yhj.27.1330027922722; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:12:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-116-97.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.116.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 34sm3935352anu.6.2012.02.23.12.12.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:12:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F469D8D.5000809@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:11:57 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120218 Firefox/10.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.7.1 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox-10.0.1 fails to compile on x86 References: <20120222002227.GA3081@ca.inter.net> <20120223102240.GB6656@Gee-Mi-Ni.epfl.ch> <201202231044.51216.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 45f4ee57-197b-43df-b916-509e87b57e52 X-Archives-Hash: d644b997f6ed94f51d0b7139ba557c0a Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote: >> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb >> squawked: >>>> I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any problems : >>>> it needed 3,61 GB disk space for the link stage >>>> & most/all of my 2 GB memory. >>> >>> Argh. 3.6 diskspace and 2G memory? I guess it is finally getting to >>> the point that my laptop cannot build firefox. Time to switch to the >>> -bin I guess. >> >> I've only got something like 625M RAM and around 4G disk space (for >> var/portage). I used 750M from that 4G for adding swap. Eventually FF >> compiled fine. >> >> The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building from >> source are constrained in resources to achieve this and have to resort to >> installing bin packages. > > I doubt that the bin package will be slower than the one compiled from > source. I predict the reverse, in fact. The bin package will perform > better. > > Why don't you test it with an online browser benchmark? You can > quickpkg the current installed version, emerge the -bin version. You > can later emerge -C the -bin version and emerge -K the one you quickpkg'ed. > > > I try to avoid pre-compiled software for the opposite reason of what you think. What makes you think that software designed and compiled to utilize all the good parts of my system would run slower than a software designed to run on any CPU/hardware out there? This is the first time I ever saw anyone make this claim. Can you shed some light on this? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"