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

Re: KDE compiled for i686

Hash: SHA1

Hello all,

The other point for compilation is stability. I have something weird on my 
system that causes kde to crash VERY regulary, if I compile my own set, this 
goes away.

As for compiling it can be as simple as issuing the command 

apt-get source --compile <package name>



On Sunday 13 May 2001  5:32 pm, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > I know that from 386 upto early pentiums there were some basic
> > additions to the instruction set so re-compiling should get a bit
> > better performance because gcc can select faster instructions.
> about every new generation of processors brought a few new instructions/
> instruction classes. the p2-series have most notably conditional moves,
> which gcc can use.
> > But I thought that to take advantage of MXX and PIII's
> > floating-point MMX instructions would take specifically written code
> > to see any kind of improvement.
> yes, when you want to use these highly specialized instructions, you should
> use libraries, which are hand-written in assembler.
> > Can/Does gcc optimise for use of the MMX and other 3D-type
> > instructions?
> no, afaik.
> > I would have thought that with the ridiculous clock speeds in use
> > now that the minor increases gained by compiling for Pentium-level
> > over 1386 would then be lost in memory-access times. Would my two
> > PII 350's get noticeably better performance on a 100Mhz Memory bus
> > if I recompiled my system?
> you can expect to get no noticable speed gain. the executables become
> a tiny bit smaller (because of the conditional moves, etc.), but this
> is mostly negligible, too.
> imo, it's not worth the effort unless you don't want to use packages
> at all.
> you should do this only for very time-critical programs, but not for
> a whole desktop.
> > As far as compiling, is it fairly easy to compile source-deb's?
> yes, see the other mails.
> best regards
Version: GnuPG v1.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org


Reply to: