On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. > <jeffrey.parke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan <lists@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Jeffrey Lynn Parke Jr. >>> <jeffrey.parke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan <lists@xxxxxxxxxx >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Matthew Monaco <dgbaley27@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > On 05/30/2010 10:53 PM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Hi, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> In order to improve firefox's reponse time, I'm thinking of compiling >>> >> >> firefox with gcc's -O3 and -march settings from the ABS. >>> >> >> Any tips on that matter, about updates, etc. ? >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > Try firefox-pgo. You have to be careful with gcc options when >>> compiling >>> >> > firefox. The AUR's firefox-pgo sets up properly for you. >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> It seems firefox-pgo is for 64bit, but I am on 32bit. I had put up a >>> >> thread about upgrading to 64bit, but many suggested that it would not >>> >> improve the performance much :( >>> >> Should I compile after upgrading ? >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Nilesh Govindarajan >>> >> Facebook: nilesh.gr >>> >> Twitter: nileshgr >>> >> Website: www.itech7.com >>> >> >>> > >>> > it should be for both 32 and 64 bit >>> > >>> >>> >>> Hmm, I think so, the compilation should fail if not :) >>> What's about firefox-qt ? Is it worth installing it ? >>> >>> -- >>> Nilesh Govindarajan >>> Facebook: nilesh.gr >>> Twitter: nileshgr >>> Website: www.itech7.com >>> >> >> >> that's a firefox port for the qt toolkit, as opposed to the regular gtk one. >> > > I know that, but is it worth installing ? > > -- > Nilesh Govindarajan > Facebook: nilesh.gr > Twitter: nileshgr > Website: www.itech7.com > Because I use KDE full time. -- Nilesh Govindarajan Facebook: nilesh.gr Twitter: nileshgr Website: www.itech7.com
