From: Ted Byers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 01:32:16 -0400 (EDT)
> --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Ted Byers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> > > On a different note, I wish I had your budget for
> > > hardware. :-)
> >
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 01:32:16AM -0400, Ted Byers wrote:
> --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Ted Byers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> > > On a different note, I wish I had your budget for
> > > hardware. :-)
> >
> > What budget?
> >
--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ted Byers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
>
> > On a different note, I wish I had your budget for
> > hardware. :-)
>
> What budget?
>
> These systems sit right at here with me at home, and
> I got all of them
From: Ted Byers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
> On a different note, I wish I had your budget for
> hardware. :-)
What budget?
These systems sit right at here with me at home, and I got all of them
for free.
--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:42:01 -0400
>
> > I agree with you 100%. It has always been my view
> that if you can't
> > compile fast enough, then get another machine and
> use distcc, or get a
> > quad core and d
From: NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:42:01 -0400
> I agree with you 100%. It has always been my view that if you can't
> compile fast enough, then get another machine and use distcc, or get a
> quad core and do make -j5, etc etc.
I have 64 cpu machines and use make -j64
2007/11/2, NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 11/1/07, Ted Byers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ...
>
> I agree with you 100%. It has always been my view that if you can't
> compile fast enough, then get another machine and use distcc, or get a
On 11/1/07, Ted Byers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:34:33 -0400
> >
> > > I think what is more important is the resulting
> > binary -- does it
> > > run faster?
> >
> > The answer to t
--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:34:33 -0400
>
> > I think what is more important is the resulting
> binary -- does it
> > run faster?
>
> The answer to this is situational dependant.
>
> For example, for me, the speed
From: NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:34:33 -0400
> I think what is more important is the resulting binary -- does it
> run faster?
The answer to this is situational dependant.
For example, for me, the speed of compilation at -O2 is very important
because I'm constantly
On 11/1/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The compile's and run's time of gcc-3.4.6 is the fastest, and i don't know
> why the modern gcc4's family is little bit slower than the older gcc3's
> family.
I would think it'd be only natural for a newer generational compiler
to require more
--
1. Unpack p7zip_4.55_src_all.tar.bz2
2. Edit CPP/7zip/Bundles/Alone/makefile adding
LOCAL_FLAGS+=-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=i686 -msse3
3. time make
4. strip --strip-all bin/7za ; ls -l bin/7za ; size bin/7za
5. tim
12 matches
Mail list logo
