From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 2B4D03858424; Sun, 17 Dec 2023 22:22:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2B4D03858424
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1702851732;
	bh=KF5wZ0pKR9rYYRh4Sqyq7H7anP72PJTnFahER/vcTSE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=pnOwz4kHi6zC/H7ZAsw0igqdLmpoi6SZiSGGPhlIRHcsgvn0FAKT8jU5SWrEDR5aB
	 QitvH5Cl8R73cZcJJBk5Q3SWF/DEmBRop0AUI73EBUBxPvwK6SEUd1R66NqLcFDUL3
	 Cc/GpcKYf84NMc+pcLzZBOc1WmXYe9sSuELONnj8=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113045] armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf: valgrind error
 during build of libcc1
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2023 22:22:11 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113045-4-mQtZe0liQd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113045-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113045-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113045

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #5)
> I have the last 18 months or so history and that's a whopping
> 3.8 Gig on it's own.

I have a full clone with all history and it's only 3.3g, I'm not sure what =
you
have there.

(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> I think it would be a reasonable git enhancement if it could
> handle the last (year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years) of commits
> without having to download 30+ years of commits.

Git can already do that fine. You just told it to create a shallow clone wi=
th a
year of history, so of course it can't tell you about anything older than t=
hat.
If you increase the depth to 3 years, or 10 years, then it will be able to =
tell
you about that history.

Anyway, if you don't want a full clone that's fine - just realise the
limitations of that and use something different to find who wrote the code:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=3Dgcc.git;a=3Dblame;f=3Dlibcpp/lex.cc;h=3D273f6b=
263c8e0f061d643cae9d7f56a22379c773;hb=3DHEAD=