Re: GCC 10 and Coverity Scan

Hi Joel, On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, Joel Sherrill wrote: > With gcc 10, Coverity reports this: > > Command-line error #1359: invalid GNU version number: 201 > > [ERROR] 1 catastrophic error detected in this compilation. > Compilation terminated. > WARNING: cov-emit returned with code 2 I notic

Re: Git and GCC

Hi, On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote: > From: "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:41:19 -0500 > > > It is true I gave up quickly, but this is mainly because i don't like > > to fight with my tools. > > > > I am quite fine with a distributed workflow, I now use 8

[PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

The default was not to change the window or depth at all. As suggested by Jon Smirl, Linus Torvalds and others, default to --window=250 --depth=250 Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On T

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

Hi, On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:03:38PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > The default was not to change the window or depth at all. As > > suggested by Jon Smirl, Linus Torvalds and others, default to > > >

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

Hi, On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote: > -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26 > pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.pack Wow. Ciao, Dscho

Re: Git and GCC

Hi, On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/7/07, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 14:14 -0800, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > > > > >> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these > > > > >> repacks? I should run oprofile... > > > > > SHA1 is

Re: Git and GCC

Hi, On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > On 2007/12/07, "Linus Torvalds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But > > we have a good optimized version there. > > If SHA1 is slow then why dont he contribute adding Haval160 (3 roun

Re: Something is broken in repack. Why not with fork and pipes?

Hi, On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > It's good idea if it's for 24/365.25 that it does > autorepack-compute-again-again-again-those-unexplored-deltas of > git repositories in realtime. :D This sentence does not parse. > Some body can do "git clone" that it could give smaller that on