Re: [Fwd: Re: i686 Port]

To: binary@freedom.prodigynetwork.co.uk
Cc: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: i686 Port]
From: Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:19:40 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 20070828171940.093e191a.celejar@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <3308.90.199.218.242.1188334402.squirrel@freedom.prodigynetwork.co.uk>
References: <[🔎] 3185.90.199.218.242.1188331136.squirrel@freedom.prodigynetwork.co.uk> <[🔎] 20070828163015.905c02a6.celejar@gmail.com> <3308.90.199.218.242.1188334402.squirrel@freedom.prodigynetwork.co.uk>

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:53:22 +0100 (BST)
"Richard Thompson" <binary@freedom.prodigynetwork.co.uk> wrote:

[snipped discussion about the benefit of 686 optimization of typical
applications]

> Userspace services daemons etc, like any program will
perform better on an
> i686 processor if they are i686 optimised :-)

But again, most of the low level code the daemons will be running will
be either in the kernel or libc, IIUC.

Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- [Fwd: i686 Port]
  - From: pinniped <cirilo_bernardo@yahoo.com>

References:
- [Fwd: Re: i686 Port]
  - From: "Richard Thompson" <binary@freedom.prodigynetwork.co.uk>
- Re: [Fwd: Re: i686 Port]
  - From: Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Shut down or leave on?
Next by Date: Re: Shut down or leave on?
Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: Re: i686 Port]
Next by thread: [Fwd: i686 Port]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread