View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Lovechild Advocate
Joined: 17 May 2002 Posts: 2858 Location: Århus, Denmark
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 2:37 pm Post subject: Dave Jones takes a stab at Gentoo |
|
|
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0309.3/1418.html
Quote: |
The "I don't want Athlon code in my kernel because I run a P4 and
it makes it slow/bigger" argument is totally bogus. It's akin to
the gentoo-esque "I compiled my distro with -march=p4 and now
my /bin/ls is faster than yours" argument.
|
I agree with him that we should be looking else where in the kernel for bloat to reduce - but please, it's bogus on a P4 fx. allow me to remove it on those - if for nothing then for safety, there was a possible DoS attack in the first versions of that patch due to some register checking that we couldn't assure was consistent... I sure as hell don't want that risk on a system where i don't need that piece of code. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
drjimmy42 Guru
Joined: 03 Feb 2003 Posts: 512 Location: Nashua, NH
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He's right, it is pretty silly. I just think portage is the easiest package manager out there. I highly doubt the optomization really buys me anything that I would ever notice. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
avenj Retired Dev
Joined: 11 Oct 2002 Posts: 495 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
drjimmy42 wrote: | He's right, it is pretty silly. I just think portage is the easiest package manager out there. I highly doubt the optomization really buys me anything that I would ever notice. |
Compiler optimizations can make a significant difference...
...but only with certain applications.
Obviously an application performing largely very basic operations with simple instructions is unlikely to benefit much from compiler optimizations (and compiler optimizations really aren't the point of Gentoo - only a nice benefit from the compile-from-source model). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|