On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:30:21PM +1100, Adam Carter wrote
> Playing video is one of few situations in which optimisation makes a
> lot of difference though, thanks to the mmx/sse stuff, which is post
> i686. So a video benchmark will should show that up, but the boost may
> be lost in a more gen
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 25/02/12 13:43, Dale wrote:
>> Walter Dnes wrote:
>>>In that case, the benchmarks are useless. From my personal
>>> experience... a fresh i686 install on a 4 and 1/2 year old Dell with
>>> onboard Intel GPU was not able to keep up with the slowest available
>>> s
On 25/02/12 13:43, Dale wrote:
Walter Dnes wrote:
In that case, the benchmarks are useless. From my personal
experience... a fresh i686 install on a 4 and 1/2 year old Dell with
onboard Intel GPU was not able to keep up with the slowest available
speed on NHL Gamecenter Live. Ditto for 108
Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:13:07AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote
>
>> The speed gains of building for specific submodels of CPUs might
>> be there, but they're minimal. Benchmarks have shown (can't find
>> the article, it was on Phoronix) that after -march=i686 you get
>> di
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:13:07AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote
>
>> The speed gains of building for specific submodels of CPUs might
>> be there, but they're minimal. Benchmarks have shown (can't find
>> the article, it was on Phoronix) tha
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:13:07AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote
> The speed gains of building for specific submodels of CPUs might
> be there, but they're minimal. Benchmarks have shown (can't find
> the article, it was on Phoronix) that after -march=i686 you get
> diminishing returns.
In th
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:43:11 -0600
Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Willie WY Wong
> wrote:
> > Actually, why is it that upstream does not provide 64bit binaries?
> > (It always bothers me to see my wife's Windows 7 machines running a
> > copy of firefox marked, in parenthe
On 24/02/12 02:34, Dale wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 23/02/12 22:11, Dale wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building
from
source are constrain
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/02/12 22:11, Dale wrote:
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building
from
source are constrained i
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
> (32-bit will work for
> everyone, 64-bit won't)
And of course by "everyone" I'm talking about Windows or Ubuntu users
who download binaries from mozilla.org in the first place, not
sophisticated pure-64-bit Gentoo users. ;)
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Willie WY Wong wrote:
> Actually, why is it that upstream does not provide 64bit binaries? (It
> always bothers me to see my wife's Windows 7 machines running a copy
> of firefox marked, in parenthesis, 32 bit.)
They're working on it... They actually have started
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:43:47PM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos Chantziaras
squawked:
> If you think it's worth the hassle, why not. Personally, the only
> reason I would build from source on such a slow system is to get a
> 64-bit build, since the -bin package seems to be 32-bit. That means the
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/02/12 21:42, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Nikos Chantziaras
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building
from
On 23/02/12 22:24, Willie WY Wong wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:55:07PM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos Chantziaras
squawked:
The PGO optimized build that Mozilla is shipping. You can also build
with PGO from source, but that means building FF *twice* in a row (by
enabling the "pgo" USE flag).
On 23/02/12 22:11, Dale wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building from
source are constrained in resources to achieve this and have to resort to
inst
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 09:55:07PM +0200, Penguin Lover Nikos Chantziaras
squawked:
> The PGO optimized build that Mozilla is shipping. You can also build
> with PGO from source, but that means building FF *twice* in a row (by
> enabling the "pgo" USE flag). I doubt that with the old laptop an
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb
>> squawked:
I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any problems :
it needed 3,61 GB disk space for
On 23/02/12 21:42, Michael Mol wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building from
source are constrained in resources to achieve this and have to resort to
installing bin pack
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb
>>
>> squawked:
I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any pr
On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote:
On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb
squawked:
I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any problems :
it needed 3,61 GB disk space for the link stage
& most/all of my 2 GB me
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:44:36AM +, Mick wrote
> I've only got something like 625M RAM and around 4G disk space (for
> var/portage). I used 750M from that 4G for adding swap. Eventually FF
> compiled fine.
>
> The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building from
>
120223 Willie WY Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb squawked:
>> I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any problems :
>> it needed 3,61 GB disk space for the link stage
>> & most/all of my 2 GB memory.
> Argh. 3.6 diskspace and 2G memory?
> I guess
On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb
squawked:
> > I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any problems :
> > it needed 3,61 GB disk space for the link stage
> > & most/all of my 2 GB memory.
>
> Argh. 3.6 d
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb squawked:
> I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any problems :
> it needed 3,61 GB disk space for the link stage
> & most/all of my 2 GB memory.
Argh. 3.6 diskspace and 2G memory? I guess it is finally getting to
the point t
On Wednesday 22 Feb 2012 07:11:15 Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 Feb 2012 00:22:27 Philip Webb wrote:
> > 120222 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > On 22/02/12 00:34, Alex Schuster wrote:
> > >> Mick writes:
> > >>> The latest stable x86 firefox fails to compile:
> > >> [... big linking being done ...]
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:11:31 -0800
walt wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 02:03 PM, Mick wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > The latest stable x86 firefox fails to compile:
> >
> > www-client/firefox-10.0.1/work/mozilla-release
>
> I noticed that firefox-bin (I got sick of co
On Wednesday 22 Feb 2012 00:22:27 Philip Webb wrote:
> 120222 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 22/02/12 00:34, Alex Schuster wrote:
> >> Mick writes:
> >>> The latest stable x86 firefox fails to compile:
> >> [... big linking being done ...]
> >>
> >>> collect2: ld terminated with signal 9 [Killed]
On 02/21/2012 02:03 PM, Mick wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The latest stable x86 firefox fails to compile:
>
> www-client/firefox-10.0.1/work/mozilla-release
I noticed that firefox-bin (I got sick of compiling the damned thing every
two weeks) just updated this morning
120222 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 22/02/12 00:34, Alex Schuster wrote:
>> Mick writes:
>>> The latest stable x86 firefox fails to compile:
>> [... big linking being done ...]
>>> collect2: ld terminated with signal 9 [Killed]
>>> make[5]: *** [libxul.so] Error 1
>> [...]
>> Do you have enough me
On 22/02/12 00:34, Alex Schuster wrote:
Mick writes:
The latest stable x86 firefox fails to compile:
[... big linking being done ...]
collect2: ld terminated with signal 9 [Killed]
make[5]: *** [libxul.so] Error 1
[...]
Do you have enough memory on that machine, is swap space activated? The
30 matches
Mail list logo
