From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt H To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] p9/linux/fbsd compiler shootout Message-Id: <20020226160457.60eea9fe.matt@proweb.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20020226150031.A2A4B19A1C@mail.cse.psu.edu> References: <20020226150031.A2A4B19A1C@mail.cse.psu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 16:04:57 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 565c9af8-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:02:54 -0700 "andrey mirtchovski" wrote: > had it been taken from a binary package it _must_ > have been much faster (all we did was 'make; make install')... I would expect the opposite (depending on the default optimisations you have set up for your compilation environment) The binary package may well be targetted to 486 to make sure that when you run it on your 486 it doesn't try to use Pentium or Pentium Pro instructions. I'm not totally sure but make; make install will surely do a configure to see what processor it's running on etc. M (who always compiles ports rather than installing packages)