Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v út 22. 05. 2007 v 20:29 -0500:
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen Montgomery-Smith p?e v ?t 22. 05. 2007 v 16:56 -0500:
> >>
> >>>> I have generated two INDEXes, one with the patch and one without.
> >>> They
> >>>> are identical, the timings:
> >>>>
> >>>> INDEX-orig
> >>>> real 16m32.761s
> >>>> user 18m36.802s
> >>>> sys 8m38.610s
> >>>>
> >>>> INDEX-ddd
> >>>> real 16m34.620s
> >>>> user 17m25.976s
> >>>> sys 8m46.333s
> >>
> >>> Sorry it didn't work out. Thanks for trying it.
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong - the minute saved here is good enough reason to
> >> apply that patch.
> >>
> >>> Could you try the "shell" one also? I got the impression it was a bit
> >>> faster.
> >>
> >> Can you send me the patch?
> >
> > Yes. In the same place as the previous one you put:
> >
> > .ifdef _USE_GNOME
> > _USE_GNOME!=(for i in ${_USE_GNOME}; do ${ECHO_CMD} $$i; done) | sort -u
> > .endif
> >
> > I'm going to try it out myself also to see if it is faster.
>
> I tried it out. On my rather fast computer, I am getting similar times.
> The non-shell patch seems slightly better, but there is not much
> between that and the shell patch. Both patches give something like 7%
> speed improvements over the original. It only potentially speeds up
> gnome ports, and then only a few of them like alacarte, so even if it
> dramatically speeds those few up, the average speed up over all ports
> will not be so great. Like I said earlier, overall improvement is
> noticeable albeit not dramatic.
Thanks for testing. I'll stick with pure-make patch and will see to
commit it after xorg freeze and some more formal testing.
--
Pav Lucistnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Like 'Do Notte Buye Betamacks.' That was a prediction for 1972.
signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy
