Hi,
I extended the gcc part a little bit to make it a little bit more clear when it
matters.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Send via an Android device, please forgive brevity and typographic and spelling
errors.
Stefan Esser s...@freebsd.org hat geschrieben:Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb
Johan
Stefan Esser schreef:
Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
[quote]
If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC
4.7 then the results are unlikely to tell you anything meaningful about
FreeBSD vs Ubuntu.
My thoughts about benchmarking - don't forget, it's the way to get at least
estimate on how your system will behave in given circumstances.
When testers measured new videocard, they tested few factors, like FPS in
modern games, pixel/texture fillrate, and whatever they do there else.
That's
On 22.12.11 11:02, Johan Hendriks wrote:
Stefan Esser schreef:
Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
If you tune up FreeBSD to use the GCC 4.7 compiler, or downgrade linux
to 4.2.1, then that will tell me nothing about FreeBSD vs Linux.
The gcc version distributed with FreeBSD was
On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
On 22.12.11 00:33, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
Using the same argument one can say that Ferrari F430 vs Toyota Prius is a
meaningless comparison because the under-the-hood equipment is different.
Of course, it is meaningless,
On 22.12.11 11:56, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchevdan...@digsys.bg wrote:
Of course, it is meaningless, the Ferrari will lose big time in the fuel
consumption comparison! I believe it will also lose the price comparison as
well. Not to speak the
On 22 December 2011 10:12, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
As for how fast to get from point A to point B. If you observe speed limits,
that will depend only on the pilot, no? :)
Both cars are sufficiently faster than the imposed speed limits.
You are ignoring acceleration, handling,
On 22.12.11 12:50, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 22 December 2011 10:12, Daniel Kalchevdan...@digsys.bg wrote:
As for how fast to get from point A to point B. If you observe speed limits,
that will depend only on the pilot, no? :)
Both cars are sufficiently faster than the imposed speed limits.
Hi,
I've created a patch that cleans up FreeBSD Makefiles that unconditionally set
the -g flag for GCC. The motivation for this is that it should be possible to
add or remove this flag globally via e.g. CFLAGS (it's part of my quest to
produce deterministic builds).
I'm not very familiar with
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 12:50:42 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Using profiled libs and gprof to profile your code has been obsolete
in FreeBSD on i386 and amd64 for over six years now.
Funny, it still seems to work on my systems.
http://www.freebsd.org/relnotes/CURRENT/relnotes/new.html#USERLAND
jexec(8) now supports -h hostname option to specify the jail where the
command will be executed.
When was this added? I don't see it functioning:
sunsaturn:~# jexec -h
jexec: illegal option -- h
usage: jexec [-u username |
On 22. Dec 2011, at 14:03 , Dan The Man wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/relnotes/CURRENT/relnotes/new.html#USERLAND
jexec(8) now supports -h hostname option to specify the jail where the
command will be executed.
Oh wow. That's all but current.
When was this added? I don't see it
Hi,
I would like to ask some feedback on the attached patch, which cleans up
the kernel optimization options for amd64. This was touched upon
earlier by Alexander Best in freebsd-toolchain, here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-toolchain/2011-October/000270.html
What this patch
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:09:23PM +0100, Hartmann, O. wrote:
H OS: FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64 r228787
H
H Since the last update of world yesterday were I managed to compile the
H OS WITH_LIBCPLUSPLUS=YES in /etc/src.conf,
H only root is capable to login on the console.
H
H I use OpenLDAP 2.4 as
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 22. Dec 2011, at 14:03 , Dan The Man wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/relnotes/CURRENT/relnotes/new.html#USERLAND
jexec(8) now supports -h hostname option to specify the jail where the command
will be executed.
Oh wow. That's all but
Hi,
On 22 Dec 2011, at 11:52, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
I've created a patch that cleans up FreeBSD Makefiles that unconditionally
set the -g flag for GCC. [etc]
Just a note of caution that I have had cases in the past where I suspected that
GCC was generating broken code without -g and good
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Bob Bishop wrote:
Hi,
On 22 Dec 2011, at 11:52, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
I've created a patch that cleans up FreeBSD Makefiles that unconditionally set
the -g flag for GCC. [etc]
Just a note of caution that I have had cases in the past where I suspected that
GCC was
On Thu Dec 22 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi,
I would like to ask some feedback on the attached patch, which cleans up
the kernel optimization options for amd64. This was touched upon
earlier by Alexander Best in freebsd-toolchain, here:
i've been using such settings for a few months now and
On 22. Dec 2011, at 16:03 , Dan The Man wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 22. Dec 2011, at 14:03 , Dan The Man wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/relnotes/CURRENT/relnotes/new.html#USERLAND
jexec(8) now supports -h hostname option to specify the jail where the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb
bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net wrote:
jexec on a name works fine if you start the jail with a name as well.
See the jail(8) man page on how to either use -n or name=.
jail -n foo ...
or
jail name=foo ...
then jexec foo ...
I've wanted to be
On 22. Dec 2011, at 19:39 , Matt Mullins wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb
bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net wrote:
jexec on a name works fine if you start the jail with a name as well.
See the jail(8) man page on how to either use -n or name=.
jail -n foo ...
or
jail
On 12/21/2011 23:20, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
I'm afraid, if we would try to document every kernel-userland API/ABI
change in head/ in the UPDATING, then the file will grow extremely quickly,
and still many issues will be forgotten to be added there.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel free
to go to http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice and have a look what can be
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone here is willing to help instead of talking, feel
free to go to
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Dec 22 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi,
I would like to ask some feedback on the attached patch, which cleans up
the kernel optimization options for amd64. This was touched upon
earlier by Alexander Best in freebsd-toolchain, here:
i've been
On Thu Dec 22 11, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
On Thu Dec 22 11, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Hi,
I would like to ask some feedback on the attached patch, which cleans up
the kernel optimization options for amd64. This was touched upon
earlier by Alexander
On 12/22/11 10:02, Johan Hendriks wrote:
Stefan Esser schreef:
Am 21.12.2011 22:49, schrieb Johan Hendriks:
Nice page, but one thing i do not get is the following.
[quote]
If you compare FreeBSD / GCC 4.2.1 against, for example, Ubuntu / GCC
4.7 then the results are unlikely to tell you
On 12/22/11 10:56, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
[...]
Any 'benchmark' has a goal. You first define the goal and then measure how
different contenders achieve it. Reaching the goal may have several
measurable metrics, that you will use
On 12/21/2011 23:20, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:35:23PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
D So does that mean that if I upgrade to the latest HEAD from a system
D built before the ifconfig changes that when I reboot my network will
D come up?
Yes, older infconfig will work in
On 12/22/11 16:59, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:09:23PM +0100, Hartmann, O. wrote:
H OS: FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT/amd64 r228787
H
H Since the last update of world yesterday were I managed to compile the
H OS WITH_LIBCPLUSPLUS=YES in /etc/src.conf,
H only root is capable to
On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:14AM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/21/11 19:41, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Hi,
while the discussion continued here, some work started at some other place.
Now... in case someone
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
schrieb O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de:
Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the
weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore,
benchmarks are very useful. But not if any real fault of the OS is
excused
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 05:40:03PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
D D So does that mean that if I upgrade to the latest HEAD from a system
D D built before the ifconfig changes that when I reboot my network will
D D come up?
D
D Yes, older infconfig will work in head r228571 || head r228768.
D
On 12/22/2011 23:22, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 05:40:03PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
D D So does that mean that if I upgrade to the latest HEAD from a system
D D built before the ifconfig changes that when I reboot my network will
D D come up?
D
D Yes, older infconfig
34 matches
Mail list logo
