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 1N3cKJ-0001Ur-A0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:14:35 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BCF48E081E; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:14:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AAE0E081E for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:14:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4167A66F8E for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:14:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.163 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.163 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.564, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SOofTqAeRaS8 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3CC66BEC for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:14:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1N3cJv-0008A0-R6 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:14:11 +0100 Received: from athedsl-372025.home.otenet.gr ([79.131.5.55]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:14:11 +0100 Received: from realnc by athedsl-372025.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:14:11 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Linux Magazine tests Gentoo performance Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:13:49 +0200 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: 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=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-372025.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091019 Thunderbird/3.0b4 In-Reply-To: Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: a22a55fd-b5ee-4dd4-affe-2abc8cc971e8 X-Archives-Hash: 4d8038def13b5f4e630bc027625c8368 On 10/29/2009 10:45 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > I suppose this is interesting to most Gentoo users. Linux Magazine > performed a detailed benchmark of Gentoo, comparing it to Ubuntu 9.04: > > http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7574/1 Btw, I think this is a very nice example of why per-package CFLAGS would have been very useful. Some application largely benefit from -Os, others from -O2.