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 1P1IID-0005zI-V5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:31:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 26C6FE082F; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAA2E082F for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:30:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyf28 with SMTP id 28so2569634wyf.40 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:30:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6Mfbo/UQfHeBAE8ukRQcP2JiG0wPgCl8SP1jEsjA4HE=; b=AQPvCmof3abQQpiyg/vUgp542Accf3IovyX7m1UlHRZfZOu0wVTCio65/Ma2R+uhIr U3rGt91VXTBEQFGUJkP39aOGSmfhSiyCnwOo/h517XZtGUD1tySKmcqStMgF1c0jt2/Q LYJEihFRi6yQKSgoSXzQuwSe5M4aiDwTmWXRk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=TDJKToEYVgAbNsW66z5ML+PZpuMl60U/0Yplyg6S5sEHSaWHSc1XwiYkJiy4gRu6b0 ok0Ln8HOWmhZT5HsCz3+26XhNbIC8JIws9zl0kyqqyW8PlrQp+R904P1G7Ui6+g/ioTg 9+9C3UP/IUBggPCoeU+fTgk++Cb0RjD0niJI4= 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 Received: by 10.216.138.65 with SMTP id z43mr2956818wei.12.1285849853336; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:30:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.26.68 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:30:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CA47BEE.8050906@gmx.de> References: <4CA47BEE.8050906@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:30:53 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] firefox-bin optimizations? From: Mark David Dumlao To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: f8ae6e08-a869-48f6-96d0-6d10ba65e590 X-Archives-Hash: 67284f69a44827e65c223196d98fd2a4 On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Johannes Kimmel w= rote: > On 09/30/2010 12:58 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: >> >> Heya, >> I noticed that my firefox-bin is a lot smaller in memory footprint >> compared to ordinary gentoo-compiled firefox. >> >> Does anyone know what compiler flags upstream applies to their >> firefox? I turned off the custom-optimization USE on mine assuming >> that it would follow upstream optimizations, but maybe it doesn't. >> > > I thought firefox-bin is a 32-bit binary. If you are using a 64-bit gento= o > it is likely you self compiled version is a lot bigger. That's right, firefox-bin is a 32bit binary, but I didn't expect the Virt size to have a nearly 3x difference (855MB vs 355MB) when loading the same tabs and running the same profile, or the Res size to have nearly double (200MB vs 130MB). Is this a speed vs size tradeoff thing? Because I noticed that my compiled firefox is doing something like 10-30 points higher in the google v8 benchmark than firefox-bin. But that's relatively a small improvement, I think my system would do better overall with the giant memory use reduction. Or is there an issue with having both firefoxes using the same profile dirs (not at the same time though). --=20 This email is:=A0 =A0 [ ] actionable=A0=A0 [ ] fyi=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 [ ] socia= l Response needed:=A0 [ ] yes=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 [ ] up to you=A0 [ ] no Time-sensitive:=A0=A0 [ ] immediate=A0 =A0 [ ] soon=A0 =A0 =A0=A0 [ ] none