Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:13:17 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?=c5=81ukasz_W=c4=85sikowski?= <lukasz@wasikowski.net> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Benchmarks results for Compilers on FreeBSD 11 Message-ID: <f272422f-daae-1648-46b3-a031c011dd01@wasikowski.net> In-Reply-To: <CAMwkeZw7e166DSYGso7o=huXexwh8VBcNSuQnG8SE_zLUX9%2BRQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <20160819073422.4292997b@X220.alogt.com> <af0fefab-69d7-f0a9-3d6d-4a9891d5a156@FreeBSD.org> <20160821144505.27c0f55d@X220.alogt.com> <827183a944ee4052649c152d65204444@schema31.it> <20160822101423.GF18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160822120215.GV22212@zxy.spb.ru> <20160823110159.GU18643@e-new.0x20.net> <20160824045558.18c86764@X220.alogt.com> <3234db29c228879cc473deec0b09568c@schema31.it> <CAMwkeZwmhqL%2BOU4kWafMOw6gCZB1N3Zxw5n-TyJ57R_toGM1Eg@mail.gmail.com> <20160826132059.63c23ee5@X220.alogt.com> <20160828060601.08ea91a8@X220.alogt.com> <CAMwkeZzeQk6tL_fG7TJdFCt_4CWPADNaHy2VP4yEs3Mm2F77MA@mail.gmail.com> <20160830074656.18bfaf05@X220.alogt.com> <CAHM0Q_Oh9%2BPzXji5t58tx6hUmM-gt_CweC%2BEGBENw23kxtzwvA@mail.gmail.com> <63d785a50de7d9a4842a4d5e32b0414d@schema31.it> <CAMwkeZw7e166DSYGso7o=huXexwh8VBcNSuQnG8SE_zLUX9%2BRQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
W dniu 2016-08-30 o 11:35, Fernando Herrero Carrón pisze: > 2016-08-30 9:04 GMT+02:00 Andrea Brancatelli <abrancatelli@schema31.it>: > >> >> >> Il 2016-08-30 05:51 K. Macy ha scritto: >> >> I can't speak for the whole universe of users, but I think it's safe >> to say that most users are not power users who individually configure >> ports tailored to their needs. I think my experiences on Ubuntu, where >> I'm definitely not a power user, are illustrative. I never compile >> *anything* that has a package in an ubuntu repo and I assume that the >> packages are configured when built to enable any performance options >> that don't potentially cause stability issues. Similarly, on FreeBSD >> most users are going to be using packages and they're going to assume >> that the packages are configured to "provide the best user >> experience". Consequently anyone using a package that could use OpenMP >> is going to legitimately just assume that "X" is slower on FreeBSD. >> And for all intents and purposes "X" _is_ slower. >> >> >> I second this 100%. >> >> If anyone thinks that this is not the "correct" approach then I don't see >> the point of the PKG project as a whole. >> > > I would also vote for "best performance per default". On a second thought, > this would actually mean "average performance per default", because we > should be conservative as to what optimizations are enabled that still work > on older CPUs. I would say enabling all those compiler optimizations would > be a safe bet (simply going from -O to -O2). +1 to that. I'd love to see FreeBSD performance superior to Linux, but even a little worse than Linux would still be ok. Unfortunatelly that "little worse" gap is growing. -- best regards, Lukasz Wasikowski
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f272422f-daae-1648-46b3-a031c011dd01>