On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 22:26, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> writes:
>
> > > Since GCC optimizations are (by default) carefully tuned, such that
> > > only those which help a given chip are enabled for that chip, I'm
> > > wondering if you can be more precise.
>
> > I've heard this too (but I've seen about as much evidence of this as I
> > have of the 30% claimed speedups from optimizations, so I don't claim
> > it's right). Apparently it has something to do with e.g. i586
> > optimizations being slower than i386 (no optimization except
> > platform-independant ones) on i686 chips, or vice versa, or Intel
> > optimizations slowing down AMD and vice versa.
>
> Right. So you use the i586 optimizations on an i586, and the i386
> optimizations on an i386. Why is this so confusing?
*shrug* Beats me. It's a problem with distributing binaries definitely,
but since I gather the original poster just wanted to automate pbuilder
and so on, my guess is a lot of people didn't bother to actually read
what he wanted to do and just jumped on him assuming he wanted Debian to
provide binaries.
Alternately, I have a theory that the number of flames on d-d is
constant over any given 8 hour interval, and so with a huge thread
finally dying down, this one (and the WineX one) had to pick up. :P
--
- Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> - http://www.sacredchao.net
"What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's
okay to be different, to not conform to society."
-- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part