From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 17 04:49:49 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BBE16A41C
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:49:49 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from iqgrande@gmail.com)
Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.202])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD6943D4C
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:49:49 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from iqgrande@gmail.com)
Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 12so246729nzp
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:message-id:cc:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer;
	b=BVX1PejeWODVabdRvwmH8MrYI3oLezFromZJruMWttJjT+svMfU3AAsahbjnWqiHJeELbMfV2sZrRglVqLh3B6e2dzgOf681d17CC9CTB2eiVtrQcYqvq8/f80fQPmQFsTdr3QaeTOOoAJ/UG5UUTg6px66tfKqf8tSqBORpVRA=
Received: by 10.36.67.16 with SMTP id p16mr1087306nza;
	Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?192.168.0.2? ([24.30.63.114])
	by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 17sm1811985nzo.2005.06.16.21.49.47;
	Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <42B20EFE.9050404@cs.tu-berlin.de>
References: <73E3C643-9DB7-4CF5-8DD0-AD92E2E9D31E@gmail.com>
	<42B20EFE.9050404@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <61EB84DB-2C47-4955-8F78-8B2EBE91D751@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Anthony M. Agelastos" <iqgrande@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:49:45 -0400
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730)
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: gnome_upgrade.sh & Firefox
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:49:49 -0000

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=