Re: Error compiling kdenetwork-1.1.2
On 28 Mar 2000, at 17:04, Jonathan Heaney wrote:
> KELowery@cs.com wrote:
>
> > On 27 Mar 2000, at 11:15, Bill Caskey wrote:
> >
> > > 1. I'm running on a laptop with a 1.3 Gb hard drive and I want the system
> > > as lean as possible. By compiling, I can optimize for a pentium and
> > > eliminate the debug/exceptions code. Smaller footprint.
> >
> > Are you recompiling your entire Debian system, or just kde? Or might kde be
> > your first step in recompiling? Are you recompiling from *.deb source packages
> > and then recreating the deb binaries?
> >
> > Reason I ask: although I've just bought a new laptop, with lots of hard drive
> > space, I have wondered how the Debian binaries are compiled in general -- for
> > some lowest common denominator of CPU (386? 486?), whereas gcc could possibly
> > do much better with the right switches for the Pentiums (I,II,III).
> >
> > Problem is that the thought of recompiling *everything* is a big daunting,
> > nevermind time consuming. However, for laptops, it should be worth it. And
> > there's something inside me which says, "why aren't you taking full advantage
> > of your hardware...?"
[snip]
> Word on the street is compiling for 586/686 doesn't make that much of a
> difference
>
> As you point out, it's a daunting task. If the above statement is accurate, a
> pointless one too.
I've heard this before, too, especially when gcc was so far behind the times.
But when egcs was merged back I just assumed things were better. And I imagine
there's not much in the way of optimizations for the Pentium III yet, either.
Does anyone know how we can find out whether 586/686 compiling is worthwhile?
Wouldn't it be at least worthwhile to recompile the kernel, the Xserver one
uses, window manager (e.g., fvwm2, englightenment, etc.), and the desktop one
uses (gnome/kde, etc.)? After that, if there's time/energy, what? Most highly
used daemons? Web browser? Emacs?
Kirk
----
Kirk Lowery
<KELowery@cs.com>
Reply to: