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

Re: [debian-mysql] Bug#674267: facing upto #674267

Excerpts from Nicholas Bamber's message of 2012-06-19 11:24:10 -0700:
> On 19/06/12 19:08, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Nicholas Bamber's message of 2012-06-19 08:35:29 -0700:
> >> I have tested with gcc-4.4 and it seems to work okay. So that is an option.
> >>
> > 
> > We should do some general performance benchmarks with 4.4 vs. 4.7 before
> > we consider this option. It would be a shame to compromise the whole of
> > mysqld's performance just to improve SSL performance, as only a small
> > fraction of users actually make use of SSL and/or the encrypt functions.
> > 
> > I think at this point I'm leaning toward TAOCRYPT_DISABLE_X86ASM on
> > i386 as the short term fix. If Oracle figures out the ASM issue and
> > can give us a patch for it soon, then we can apply that, but for now,
> > this seems the solution that penalizes the fewest users.
> Assuming we don't just stick one of thumbs in the air, how would you
> plan to go about this? We could just compare the build times. We could
> add some timestamps to debian/rules so we can focus on the test part of
> the build. I don't think I have got much more stomach for any more
> testing than  that as I have dealt with a fair few RC bugs over the past
> month.

I discussed this briefly with Adam Conrad whom knows a fair bit more
about GCC than I do.

He assured me that 4.4's i386 code would be mostly identical to 4.7's,
so there shouldn't be risk of performance regression.

So, if 4.4 is indeed staying, then it sounds like a good option to just
build with gcc 4.4 on i386, and 4.7 on all other platforms.

Reply to: