Privacy

38001 readers

474 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

126

By Default, Signal Doesn't Recall (signal.org)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

How much of a difference do you notice in practice? Do you think you could see similiar gains by compiling, for example, Wine & some libraries with -march=native & maybe -O3?

Note:
-march=native does imply -mtune=native, at least on gcc, unless you specify another tune yourself. Some people assume that it isn't the case, but it's stated in the man page:

When -march=native is given and no other -mcpu or -mtune is given then GCC will pick the host CPU as the CPU to tune for as well as select the architecture features from. That is, -march=native is treated as -mcpu=native.

Sorry for the arch/tune rant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No worries, I'm here for it!

It's a noticeable improvement to me, but probably only marginal to the layperson. I haven't gotten around to more thorough profiling yet (the included btop++ profiler actually caused my games to crash), but I get the impression my PC is utilizing a lot more of its capabilities (based on performance, fan noise, etc), though maybe I'm just confirming my own biases.

I'm guessing you might get similar gains by compiling manually, but the nice thing with CachyOS is that it's already compiled (likely with other optimizations as well, I haven't looked too far into it). I have the technical skills to compile manually, but not the time or energy, so it's a great solution for me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

As you use Cachy, you probably already knew, but Arch compiles for x86_64_v1 (all 64-bit x86 CPUs). While some packages (glibc, I think & codecs, for example) use compiler magic & assembly to use vector instructions when available, most packages compiled for Arch cannot make use of them. Some programs feel much faster when compiling them myself.

I wonder if clear Linux (Intel's distro) would have any noticeable improvement i performance? I think that Cachy might use a few of their patches.
Note: I'm very much not an Intel shill. I wouldn't want to actually use it, just interested in the performance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, the defacto Arch packages are only compiled for v1, but CachyOS has compiled a lot of the core libraries for v3/v4 (including Wine), which is where I think I'm seeing some improvements. I'm sure the performance would be more optimized by compiling myself, but I don't have the time or patience for it right now.