Bug 140033 - RFE: i686 build for Ghostscript
Summary: RFE: i686 build for Ghostscript
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: ghostscript (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: i386 Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tim Waugh
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: FutureFeature
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2004-11-19 13:42 UTC by P Linnell
Modified: 2009-10-21 15:48 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-10-21 15:48:02 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description P Linnell 2004-11-19 13:42:42 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2)
Gecko/20040906

Description of problem:
Building i686 would benefit and speed up printing, especially with
high resolution prints.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. None.
2.
3.
    

Additional info:
Comment 1 Barry K. Nathan 2004-11-19 17:33:31 UTC 
Do you have any numbers to back this up? (Just wondering.)

On my Athlon XP, I tried recompiling Firefox as i686 rather than i386
and it didn't make any measurable difference (and this was on a web
page that takes Firefox over 10 minutes to render).
Comment 2 Barry K. Nathan 2004-11-19 17:36:57 UTC 
Oops, I accidentally hit "commit" before I was done typing my
comment... Anyway, my point is that even for a CPU-intensive program,
recompiling as i686 may not make any noticeable difference. (The
default Red Hat compile options already specify Pentium 4 optimization
for i386 packages.)
Comment 3 Tim Waugh 2009-10-21 15:48:02 UTC 
Didn't get to do this before i686 became the default. :-(
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.