Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 28/06/10 09:05, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Thank you for the quick testing! >> So far I've been unable to spot the cause or to reproduce that, but since >> the way the new code works depends on the range of inode number values, >> that's not too surprising. You have some very large inode numbers in >> that hierarchy, and that's exercising code that is not run in my tests. >> >> It always succeeds like this: >> >> 586M /home/meyering/gcc > > What I did exactly was: > ./bootstrap --gnulib-srcdir=/home/padraig/git/gnulib; ./configure > --enable-gcc-warnings; make > > However now having worked on another branch and switched back > and repeated the above, I can't reproduce :(
Hmm... mixed feelings. Glad there appears to be no problem, yet concerned that a problem may be lurking... > I'd chalk this down to build issues though I can't see what's changed. > > $ ./src/du -hs ~/f8/gcc > 2.9G /home/padraig/f8/gcc > > $ find ~/f8/gcc -printf "%D:%i\n" | sort -t: -k2,2n | tail -n10 > 2056:9765506 > 2056:9765506 > 2056:9765507 > 2056:9765507 > 2056:9765511 > 2056:9765511 > 2056:9765512 > 2056:9765512 > 2056:9806497 > 2056:9806497 > > $ df -T ~/f8/gcc > Filesystem Type 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on > /dev/sda8 ext3 38593360 34356772 3439768 91% /old_home > > There is no significant difference in speed between > the old new and your new memory efficient one. Thanks again for testing.
