Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:49:45 -0400 From: "Anthony M. Agelastos" <iqgrande@gmail.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gnome_upgrade.sh & Firefox Message-ID: <61EB84DB-2C47-4955-8F78-8B2EBE91D751@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <42B20EFE.9050404@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <73E3C643-9DB7-4CF5-8DD0-AD92E2E9D31E@gmail.com> <42B20EFE.9050404@cs.tu-berlin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 16, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Bj=F6rn K=F6nig wrote: > Hello Anthony, > > I suggest to try it without optimizations first. I had problems =20 > with many ports using -march=3Dpentium3 or even -mtune=3Dpentium3. > > Bj=F6rn > Hello, Thank you for the reply. Out of curiosity, if I were to optimize for =20 i686 as opposed to Pentium 3, would that help fix the problem (and if =20= so, what kind of speed difference would there be)? Is there even much =20= of a speed bump using this march setting or is it just not worth =20 having at all? I noticed that several compiles in there used the -O2 =20 optimization which I did not specify, so I know that the Port uses =20 some custom optimization; could these also be a culprit? What =20 optimization settings do you all recommend for such a system: Pentium III 450 MHz // 320 MB RAM Thank you again for your help. -Anthony=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?61EB84DB-2C47-4955-8F78-8B2EBE91D751>