On 2002-12-16 23:24, Gary Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:45 AM 12/17/2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >I still have the Pentium 133 with 64 MB or memory that I used to run
> >5.0-CURRENT until a few weeks ago. I haven't got any real numbers,
> >but the general `feel' of the syste
- Original Message -
From: "Cliff L. Biffle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: 5.0 performance (was: 80386 out of GENERIC)
> On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:19 am, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> > At 5:58
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 12:19 am, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 5:58 AM +0100 12/17/02, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> >Also didn't someone mention that GCC has got slower anyway ?
>
> gcc is slower at compiling things. This is very noticeable when
> you're doing a buildworld. The code which gcc 3.
At 5:58 AM +0100 12/17/02, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
Also didn't someone mention that GCC has got slower anyway ?
gcc is slower at compiling things. This is very noticeable when
you're doing a buildworld. The code which gcc 3.2.1 produces
does not seem any slower than the code produced by gcc 2
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 03:45:22AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote:
> > >
> > > 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let
> >
Read the top of /usr/src/UPDATING
Explains most of the "slow" problems.
At 03:45 AM 12/17/2002 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote:
> >
> > 2) I'm scared that 5.0
On 2002-12-17 10:57, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 16 December 2002 at 10:09:48 -0800, Chris Doherty wrote:
> >
> > 2) I'm scared that 5.0 is going to be unpleasantly slow on my p2-366, let
> >alone a 386.
>
> I'm running it diskless on a K6/233. I'm surprised how
