Originally posted by ryszardzonk
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GLAMOR Acceleration Might Work On Newer X.Org
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostApologies, I mistook you for jrch2k8.
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostWhat I want to say is that you notice the speed improvements. But packages can break in subtle ways. Packages could change their behaviour in corner cases which do not get as much production testing. These optimizations are 'ready when they are ready'.
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostFurthermore, multimedia packages are already by default mostly optimized with CFLAGS deemed appropiate by it's original author.
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostFinally, in Gentoo a lot of packages are silently substituting your CFLAGS out of the equation to prevent breakage. The speed improvement is between your ears. However, jrch2k8 mentioning QT4 could be a speed increase. But that is about it.
Personally I would love to now what would be the best way to test speed of flags for libjpeg-turbo, mesa or x264 both encoding and decoding and others like it or better yet someone said that on their specific machine certain flag gives additional boost of "%" with no noticed problems.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ryszardzonk View PostWhatever gave You the idea that I use that for coreutils??? Have You actually read what You comment on? I said I use conservative settings -O2 for system libs, then there is comma in the sentence...
Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Postmy make.conf pass around 30 flags to gcc including LTO/Graphite/bulldozer specifics/etc.[have a regular set of flags too without lto for some problematic packages maybe 30 in my whole emerge world]
Furthermore, multimedia packages are already by default mostly optimized with CFLAGS deemed appropiate by it's original author.
Finally, in Gentoo a lot of packages are silently substituting your CFLAGS out of the equation to prevent breakage. The speed improvement is between your ears. However, jrch2k8 mentioning QT4 could be a speed increase. But that is about it.
Leave a comment:
-
Why wouldn't one want LTO for coreutils? ~10% smaller binaries for free.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Rexilion View PostThe only sane reason I can think of doing this is that if you use something a lot it might help. E.g. like giving the lame encoder 30 CFLAGS to make it faster if you encode a lot of audio. Why on earth do this insanity system-wide?
Seriously, you don't want coreutils with lto and ffast-math.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ryszardzonk View Postmy friend please share the mentioned flags you use. Others like me for instance would like to try them as well I believe to see how their millage varies.
Personally on my install I usually go conservative like -O2 on system libs, -O3 --ffasth-math (or -Ofast) on multimedia & archive compression stuff and few more tweaks here and there
Seriously, you don't want coreutils with lto and ffast-math.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Postfor example
Qt-gui with -o2 native is fast ofc but you notice few Ms delay between click and apps opening
Qt-gui with my 30 flags is almost open when you take your finger of the mouse
Qt-gui with my 30 flags + PGO[<-- not easy] is instant i mean freaking instant
so if you dare to play with your compiler setting you can gain some free perfomance and squeze some additional responsiveness
Personally on my install I usually go conservative like -O2 on system libs, -O3 --ffasth-math (or -Ofast) on multimedia & archive compression stuff and few more tweaks here and there
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostChris Wilson is claiming it's still broken.
Maybe it's just partially working, or is worse on Intel or something.
Leave a comment:
-
Or maybe not
Chris Wilson is claiming it's still broken.
Maybe it's just partially working, or is worse on Intel or something.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: