On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:06:56 +0100
Michael Banck wrote:
> > After spending a week or two of my PhD on that, I compared the performances
> > with the one from the stock debian build and it turned out to be within
> > 1% my costly build. Very disappointing to me. Good job you
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:13:24PM +0100, Jerome Kieffer wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:19:09 +0100
> Julian Taylor wrote:
>
> > These numbers are very surprising to me.
>
> I do agree with Julian ...
> Once upon a time, I have been a computational chemist and
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:19:09 +0100
Julian Taylor wrote:
> These numbers are very surprising to me.
I do agree with Julian ...
Once upon a time, I have been a computational chemist and believed I
could get this 2-6x speed up by recompiling the whole scientific stack
On 09.02.2017 07:23, lumin wrote:
>
>> So do you think we are doing a bad service to our users by striping
>> -march=native? Could you please provide some numbers?
>
> No, we are not doing bad. Nobody is wrong. We cannot gain compatibility
> and performance at the same time. I don't remember
> So do you think we are doing a bad service to our users by striping
> -march=native? Could you please provide some numbers?
No, we are not doing bad. Nobody is wrong. We cannot gain compatibility
and performance at the same time. I don't remember the exact numbers of
those experiments
Le 08/02/2017 à 18:10, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> I wonder whether we could invent some mechanism that is rebuilding a
> package in postinst and installs the result on the machine instead of a
> pre-build binary. Or we could provide some toolset which enables
> scientists to download a set of
Hi Lumin,
thanks for your long explanation. While I have a divergent opinion in
some points I do not feel competent enough to discuss this here.
However, I stumbled upon one point which I consider a valuable topic to
move to debian-de...@lists.debian.org.
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 03:33:16PM
7 matches
Mail list logo