[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: iceweasel-6.0.2

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:04:07AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> On 30/09/2011, at 7:47 AM, Bob Tracy wrote:
> >(broken optimizer)

> Which compiler version?  The default gcc-4.4?  Maybe gcc-4.5 or  
> gcc-4.6 would be better?  There is a bug report of bad optimisation in  
> gcc-4.4 (#566195) which is, IIRC, fixed in gcc-4.5.  (I've never got  
> around to adding to that bug report with extra info...)

Last verifiable bad optimization was in compiler version 4.4.5.  I'm
currently using 4.4.6, and didn't try to do an optimized build on this
occasion.  Main reason is how long it takes to do firefox builds on the
PWS 433au.  The iceweasel/xulrunner build took over 12 hours without
optimization, and turning on "-O2" both adds time to the build and
pretty much guarantees a broken executable when the smoke clears.

> >Other things on the "to do" list would include implementing the js JIT
> >code on Alpha:
> I suspect that is a major exercise.

Allow me to confirm those suspicions :-).  I *might* have the coding
skills to be able to do it, but it would take me far more time than I
have available to make it happen.  I'm sure there's someone better

> >  Still have to specify "--disable-ipc" as well, which isn't
> >necessary on supported architectures: that would need to be  
> >implemented
> >and pushed upstream as well.
> I think that would be relatively straight-forward to implement.  Some  
> of the kernel code probably can be used as a model.
> Matt: would you be interested in doing this?

ACK on Matt being interested but lacking time at the moment.  I'm about
to "go dark" for a few days due to an upcoming wedding, but I'll be
happy to reengage the discussion next Tuesday.

> >Again, I need to get in touch with Mike Hommey et. al. before this  
> >thing
> >can go much farther.  I've added Mike to the "Cc:" list.
> Yes, maybe Mike can take a look at your "fixes" and comment thereupon.
> Bob, are you able to make available a source package with your  
> changes?  That would be a lot less easier on your bandwidth to download.

I'd like to think "dpkg-buildpackage" has an option to build the source
package without having to redo the binary package builds.  (I typically
do a binary-packages-only build to avoid clobbering the original source
package).  Let me see what I can do about that before the weekend gets


Reply to: