On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 31/05/10 13:23, Nilesh Govindarajan 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 ? >>>>> >>>>> 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 ? >>>> >>> that's a firefox port for the qt toolkit, as opposed to the regular gtk >>> one. >>> >> >> I know that, but is it worth installing ? >> > > Surely you can decide yourself. > > > I heard that firefox-qt is still under heavy development and is not much good. I am on a slow connection, so would like a feedback if someone is already using it. -- Nilesh Govindarajan Facebook: nilesh.gr Twitter: nileshgr Website: www.itech7.com
