From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 2B1033858419; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 17:23:43 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2B1033858419 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1704216223; bh=IEmIF1BjRN5KWBlUiTnaVl3bPLqAvj7KegXXcnMniJY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=seZewpz2Sz02Ekg0JG5oI3tAiZfqVJqHpI+3ThyvQLngWO25bL8V4KgVanfndCE+u ZYif4zF5KBn4Dl8LvvlgVBEw1OMhWQYg6SqvSByO7o4AzP0xGTCZ4OKtmjmTNUZAyq EPSxLH8JCUxHV8kzt/02XQbbfLKNy7ICif8HkY9w= From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/113045] armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf: valgrind error during build of libcc1 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 17:23:41 +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: rearnsha 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113045 --- Comment #28 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #5) > No idea. I know the gcc project is over 30 years old and it is not > feasible for me to download the entire history, it is too large. >=20 > I have the last 18 months or so history and that's a whopping > 3.8 Gig on it's own. $ cd ~/gnusrc/gcc/master/.git $ du -sh . 1.8G . So on my machine the entire git history is just 1.8G; that's because the history is very densely packed on the server and pulling the entire history does not require an unpack-repack-send sequence.=20=20 But if you download a partial history, then the git server has to unpack and then repack the required history in order to send it; that makes the process much slower and results in far more data being transmitted (the on-the-fly repack is not as dense because it would take too much time).=