On Tuesday 05 February 2008, Jerry McBride wrote:
> Are the numbers posted somewhere I can get to? It'd be good reading.
Google knows where they are.
--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Jerry McBride wrote:
>
> Thanks for the offer. I'm almost finished the re-compiling stuff however. Why
> not post the script anyways? Someone else may be doing the same thing.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
It is attached. It's been around a while so I assume it still works. I
put mine in the /root direct
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 10:35:34 am Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 February 2008, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > Should be interesting... It'll lay to rest what everyone speculates
> > or postulates. :')
>
> No need. Been done. Question answered long ago. You are beating a dead
> horse. We alre
On Tuesday 05 February 2008, Jerry McBride wrote:
> Should be interesting... It'll lay to rest what everyone speculates
> or postulates. :')
No need. Been done. Question answered long ago. You are beating a dead
horse. We already know *exactly* what difference it makes - precious
little.
You w
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 10:28:01 am Dale wrote:
> Jerry McBride wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 February 2008 09:40:30 am Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 05 February 2008, Jerry McBride wrote:
> >>> Would the compiler then be optimized for the pentium4 and thus run a
> >>> tad bit faster?
> >>
>
"Benedikt Morbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> no, it would not.
> gcc would simply refuse to work, because CHOST="pentium4-pc-linux-gnu"
> is not a valid CHOST.
> CHOST describes the platform you build on. For optimizations take a
> look at CFLAGS.
Though looking at /usr/share/gnuconfi
Jerry McBride wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 February 2008 09:40:30 am Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 05 February 2008, Jerry McBride wrote:
>>
>>> Would the compiler then be optimized for the pentium4 and thus run a
>>> tad bit faster?
>>>
>> See Benedikt's answer for why you should n
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 09:40:30 am Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 February 2008, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > Would the compiler then be optimized for the pentium4 and thus run a
> > tad bit faster?
>
> See Benedikt's answer for why you should not go down this road.
>
> If you did get it all
On Tuesday 05 February 2008, Jerry McBride wrote:
> Would the compiler then be optimized for the pentium4 and thus run a
> tad bit faster?
See Benedikt's answer for why you should not go down this road.
If you did get it all to work right, and suffered through the emerge -e
world required, your
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 09:18:17 am Benedikt Morbach wrote:
> Hi,
>
> no, it would not.
> gcc would simply refuse to work, because CHOST="pentium4-pc-linux-gnu"
> is not a valid CHOST.
> CHOST describes the platform you build on. For optimizations take a
> look at CFLAGS.
>
Where do I find a l
Hi,
no, it would not.
gcc would simply refuse to work, because CHOST="pentium4-pc-linux-gnu"
is not a valid CHOST.
CHOST describes the platform you build on. For optimizations take a
look at CFLAGS.
And by the way: Changing CHOST is not worth the trouble. Even if it
would be possible in your case
Morning...
A small question to satisfy my curiosity about the CHOST setting
in /etc/make.conf...
Currently I have CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" on a computer with a pentium4
processor. Would it make any differences, at all, to change this to
CHOST="pentium4-pc-linux-gnu" ?
Would the compiler th
12 matches
Mail list logo
