Re: [gentoo-user] kdehiddenvisibility: What does it do?
On Mon, 29 May 2006 09:33:30 +0400, Dirk Heinrichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI: Tried this last weekend after reading this thread. I've never seen KDE starting that fast! And I tried it too but didn't notice a slight increase! Maybe I did something wrong? -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] kdehiddenvisibility: What does it do?
On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:58:54 +0400, Dirk Heinrichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you recompile qt with gcc-4.1 before recompiling KDE? Yeah of course. And all CFLAGS are right. I did try a little test $ time konsole -e sh exit And in both cases (3.4.6 and 4.1.1 +kdehiddenvisibility) it shows the same time ~1.08s -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] kdehiddenvisibility: What does it do?
On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:24:20 +0400, Dirk Heinrichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read my first mail again, please. I didn't write about a single app, I wrote about KDE startup. Oh, I'm sorry but shouldn't a single app be affected? And KDE startup time is hardly to measure. So the question is open: has anybody noticed a _single application_ performance increase with GCC 4.1 and hidden visibility. KDE I mean. Or maybe Konsole is no good to make tests? But it is the only precise test I know. When it is about milliseconds human cannot see the difference really. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:40:06 +0400, Jason Weisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: app-admin/perl-cleaner These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize by the ebuild wasn't equal to the downloaded filesize. This only happened with gcc-config 6 (4.1.1). When I switched back to 3.4.5, emerge -e world was flawless. Very odd. I have just switched to gcc 4.1.1 and experienced the same. All worked out after `emerge --sync'. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] more CFLAG
On Wed, 17 May 2006 03:30:31 +0400, Harry Putnam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the opportunity of a major update to adjust CFLAGS in /etc/make.conf and I found something that looks like it might be a typo of mine. CFLAGS=-Os -march=athlon-xp -pipe Does the `O' (uppercase oh) have an `s' component? gcc man says the `O' is to set levels and I think this may be supposed to be a 2. -Os is an optimization for size. From man gcc: -Os Optimize for size. -Os enables all -O2 optimizations that do not typically increase code size. It also performs further optimiza- tions designed to reduce code size. -Os disables the following optimization flags: -falign-functions -falign-jumps -falign-loops -falign-labels -freorder-blocks -fprefetch-loop-arrays If you use multiple -O options, with or without level numbers, the last such option is the one that is effective. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
