BlueFyre: W32 2004-05-05 AthlonXP (O2/G7/GL/SSE, .NET 2003)

Discussion about official Mozilla Firefox builds
Post Reply
User avatar
BlueFyre
Posts: 1985
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 4:33 pm

BlueFyre: W32 2004-05-05 AthlonXP (O2/G7/GL/SSE, .NET 2003)

Post by BlueFyre »

These are all Trunk Builds.

I built Mozilla Firefox from CVS with MSVC++ .NET 2003 using some optimisations.

Optimised for Athlon XP and some newer Durons with SSE (-O2 -G7 -GL -arch:SSE):
http://pryan.org/firefox/BlueFyre/Firef ... GL-SSE.zip (~7.80MB - zip)
http://pryan.org/firefox/BlueFyre/Firef ... -GL-SSE.7z (~5.6MB - 7z)
The above build will work on systems that support the SSE instruction set ONLY.

[Note] Extracting will make a folder named Firefox

checkout start: Wed May 5 06:44:23 PDT 2004

I should note that I can't guarantee that these builds will work with Windows 95 (Microsoft has removed Windows 95 as a target platform on their .NET 2003 version of development tools), but they will work with Windows 98/NT4 or better, and probably on Windows 95 too.

You can find a copy of these builds (and my older builds) on pryan's mirror:
http://pryan.org/firefox/BlueFyre

My .mozconfig is as follows:

. $topsrcdir/browser/config/mozconfig
ac_add_options --disable-tests
ac_add_options --disable-debug
ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-O2 -G7 -GL -arch:SSE"
ac_add_options --enable-static
ac_add_options --disable-shared

My builds have the following preference set:
pref("general.useragent.vendorComment", "BlueFyre");

I've included a copy of my .mozconfig in the build folder itself.
For more on what the optimisation switches do see this link:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us ... _.2f.o.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us ... _.2f.g.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us ... ecture.asp

[Note] Using scragz's unofficial branding (http://scragz.com/tech/mozilla/firefox- ... anding.php)
If you notice this notice you may notice that this notice is not worth noticing.
User avatar
GrailKnight
Posts: 2359
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 5:40 am
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Getting better as the days go by!

Post by GrailKnight »

The 05May04 build is running fine so far.

I had FF crash on 1 extension and had to replace FF and a backed up profile. The 2nd. time around the trouble maker extension loaded correctly.

The build is the fastest yet and stable now.

Thanks.
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact". - Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
BlueFyre
Posts: 1985
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 4:33 pm

Post by BlueFyre »

To anyone who reads this...
Does anyone know if /GF works out good in builds? I know that moox used it and some people have been saying it has been faster then a non /GF build (as far as I can tell that is the only difference)

"/GF: Enables the compiler to create a single copy of identical strings in the program image and in memory during execution, resulting in smaller programs, an optimization called string pooling. "

References here too: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/defau ... .2f.GF.asp

[edit]
Also I have noticed /Gs also... but it isn't listed with an explanation on moox' page
References to it here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/defau ... .2f.Gs.asp
If you notice this notice you may notice that this notice is not worth noticing.
User avatar
moox
Posts: 923
Joined: February 29th, 2004, 1:07 am
Location: Wish I were in Alaska...

Post by moox »

BlueFrye
They are both working out well in my builds. I am making a fairly broad comparison of many of the builds up here and the different optimization flags in hopes of figuring oiut what *actually* is faster vs what is percieved to be faster. I like the recent recognition, but simply saying "this build is the fastest" means nothing without some numbers to back it up... [-X

PS: Thanks for reminding me about my post and not listing the /Gs. I will update that.
User avatar
BlueFyre
Posts: 1985
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 4:33 pm

Post by BlueFyre »

Nah I'm not gonna start adding more flags to my bulds... yet ;)

I'm gonna wait till Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 comes out... (yes they dropped the .NET part)
And if I do switch to VS 2004 I'll maybe have a look too see if it has better optimizations and so forth... and I just want to be reminded of what to look for, for optimizations later on :P

At least competition here isn't gonna cost you and arm and a leg ;)

[Edit]
Also I beleive there's another version that will support Longhorn too...
Image

Roadmap wrote:Visual Studio code name "Orcas". This version of Visual Studio and the .NET Framework will provide tools support for the Windows operating system, code name "Longhorn."

[/edit]
If you notice this notice you may notice that this notice is not worth noticing.
User avatar
Lohvarn
Posts: 332
Joined: January 30th, 2004, 9:43 pm
Location: Fort Worth, TX

Post by Lohvarn »

As of Community Preview 1 Visual Studio 2005 did not have any new optimization flags.
rborek
Posts: 15
Joined: March 30th, 2004, 12:08 pm

Post by rborek »

BlueFyre wrote:To anyone who reads this...
Does anyone know if /GF works out good in builds? I know that moox used it and some people have been saying it has been faster then a non /GF build (as far as I can tell that is the only difference)

"/GF: Enables the compiler to create a single copy of identical strings in the program image and in memory during execution, resulting in smaller programs, an optimization called string pooling. "


It also states at the bottom of the page: "/GF is in effect when /O1 or /O2 is used." If /O1 or /O2 is used, then /GF is automatically added - see http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vccore/html/_core_.2f.o1.2c_2f.o2.asp for the flags automatically enabled when you use /O1 and /O2.
User avatar
BlueFyre
Posts: 1985
Joined: February 11th, 2004, 4:33 pm

Post by BlueFyre »

heh... after further reading of that link rborek posted....

"/O2 (Maximize Speed) /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy Creates the fastest code in the majority of cases. (Default setting for release builds)"
If you notice this notice you may notice that this notice is not worth noticing.
Post Reply