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 <gentoo-user+bounces-135416-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1S0j8T-0006V5-MK
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:35:45 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ED1E1E0B64;
Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:35:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC324E0616
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:34:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by yhjj72 with SMTP id j72so1092534yhj.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:34:39 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rdalek1967@gmail.com designates 10.236.157.10 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.236.157.10;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rdalek1967@gmail.com designates 10.236.157.10 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rdalek1967@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=rdalek1967@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.236.157.10])
by 10.236.157.10 with SMTP id n10mr30475yhk.41.1330043679283 (num_hops = 1);
Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:34:39 -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=BbfDAa4uVpZA0a5SNAIwa+3H3PHc+FXDtuoUTWhMq/g=;
b=BEBPYBuwqE44jGoEy+uogWXXBJAWg8zvimH758tuyR2sGJbU/EuSW7QMW0bXrIqBdT
uCv03RIZtbiPLRCE7tqO8N1XJ09pJG6bRlgIqd7h1IQgEsHLHG6BVt11nM44ENw61Vbd
8muX65MKC6pR8BYObIdRpNBrmadoQCM1OMl3A=
Received: by 10.236.157.10 with SMTP id n10mr22376yhk.41.1330043678821;
Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:34:38 -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 o68sm7780823yhk.16.2012.02.23.16.34.36
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:34:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F46DB1B.8050403@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:34:35 -0600
From: Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>
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: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
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: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox-10.0.1 fails to compile on x86
References: <CAGOe-ewZNouYDXg271WP+OxKfrGkjW0e1sWSE40aAk7MjRG-aw@mail.gmail.com> <20120222002227.GA3081@ca.inter.net> <20120223102240.GB6656@Gee-Mi-Ni.epfl.ch> <201202231044.51216.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <ji64f3$8de$1@dough.gmane.org> <4F469D8D.5000809@gmail.com> <ji676t$vc3$1@dough.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <ji676t$vc3$1@dough.gmane.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: e0376a01-7162-4fad-a866-e93d8f4c56a7
X-Archives-Hash: 5d1e993a338ac4481a33af41b3068815
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/02/12 22:11, Dale wrote:
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>
> Already did in my other post.
>
> Also, your assumption is wrong. Binary packages are not designed to run
> on any CPU and hardware out there. They are designed to run on specific
> architectures, and with a minimum requirement of some specific CPU.
> firefox-bin will certainly not run on a PPC or MIPS machine running
> Linux, for example.
>
>
>
Actually, I can install the same binaries on a AMD machine, a Intel
based machine and they work. Thing is, on my machine, I enable
MARCH=native and everything is compiled for my CPU. Since I have AMD,
they may not run or may be buggy if ran on a Intel machine. That's what
I have always been told. Have I been told the wrong thing for the last
8 or 9 years?
Am I right in reading as the rest is Firefox specific?
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"