Re: Linus' sha1 is much faster!

2009-08-17 Thread Giuseppe Scrivano
Pádraig Brady writes: > -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions > -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i586 > -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 thanks. I did again all tests on my machine using these same options. I repeated eac

Re: Linus' sha1 is much faster!

2009-08-17 Thread Andreas Ericsson
Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: That said, I don't know if the MPL is ok for X11. I've not looked at compatibility issues with MPL. For git, we could just ignore the MPL, since the GPLv2 was acceptable regardless of it. If MPL isn't ok for X11, then we'd need

chroot diff. errors?

2009-08-17 Thread Mehdi _1
Hi; Sometimes the command chroot does not work, for instance ,earlier the same command (below) worked in the same directory! But now I get these: r...@ubuntu9:disk>chroot . /bin/bash: error while loading shared libraries: libncurses.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directo

Re: Linus' sha1 is much faster!

2009-08-17 Thread Steven Noonan
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > Pádraig Brady writes: > >>   -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions >>   -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i586 >>   -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -D_GNU_SOURCE=1 > > thanks.  I did aga

Re: Linus' sha1 is much faster!

2009-08-17 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Steven Noonan wrote: > > Interesting. I compared Linus' implementation to the public domain one > by Steve Reid[1] You _really_ need to talk about what kind of environment you have. There are three major issues: - Netburst vs non-netburst - 32-bit vs 64-bit - compiler v

Re: Linus' sha1 is much faster!

2009-08-17 Thread Giuseppe Scrivano
Hi, These are the results I reported (median of 5 plus an additional not considered first run) on the Steve Reid's SHA1 implementation using the same flags to the compiler that I used for previous tests. GCC 4.3.3: real0m2.627s GCC 4.4.1: real0m3.742s In both cases it showed to

new snapshot available: coreutils-7.4.125-eca6

2009-08-17 Thread Jim Meyering
Pádraig fixed a few bugs (thanks!), and I've pulled in the latest from gnulib, so here's another snapshot. Thanks to everyone who has been helping. I'm expecting to switch from statfs to statvfs after releasing coreutils-7.5, assuming no system we care about is affected. coreutils snapshot: htt

Re: new snapshot available: coreutils-7.4.125-eca6

2009-08-17 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Monday 17 August 2009 16:26:20 Jim Meyering wrote: > Pádraig fixed a few bugs (thanks!), and I've pulled in > the latest from gnulib, so here's another snapshot. > Thanks to everyone who has been helping. > > I'm expecting to switch from statfs to statvfs after releasing > coreutils-7.5, assumin

[patch #2565] added option to sort: sort human readable file sizes

2009-08-17 Thread Jim Meyering
Update of patch #2565 (project coreutils): Status:None => In Progress ___ Follow-up Comment #2: --human-numeric-sort has been added in upstream git, for the imminent coreutils-7.5 release

Re: new snapshot available: coreutils-7.4.125-eca6

2009-08-17 Thread Jim Meyering
Mike Frysinger wrote: >> Changes in coreutils since 7.4.115-c9c92: > > `make && make check` passes for me: > - non-root user > - glibc-2.10.1 > - gcc-4.4.1 > - linux-2.6.30.4 > - x86_64 system Good to hear. Thanks for the speedy feedback!

Re: Linus' sha1 is much faster!

2009-08-17 Thread Steven Noonan
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Steven Noonan wrote: >> >> Interesting. I compared Linus' implementation to the public domain one >> by Steve Reid[1] > > You _really_ need to talk about what kind of environment you have. > > There are three major is

Re: new snapshot available: coreutils-7.4.125-eca6

2009-08-17 Thread Erik Auerswald
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:51:54PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> Changes in coreutils since 7.4.115-c9c92: > > > > `make && make check` passes for me: > > - non-root user > > - glibc-2.10.1 > > - gcc-4.4.1 > > - linux-2.6.30.4 > > - x86_64 system > > Good to hear. >

Re: chroot diff. errors?

2009-08-17 Thread Bob Proulx
Mehdi _1 wrote: > Sometimes the command chroot does not work, for instance ,earlier > the same command (below) worked in the same directory! But now I > get these: > > r...@ubuntu9:disk>chroot . > /bin/bash: error while loading shared libraries: libncurses.so.5: cannot open > shared object file:

Re: new snapshot available: coreutils-7.4.125-eca6

2009-08-17 Thread Jim Meyering
Erik Auerswald wrote: > make && make check passes for me too: > - non-root > - Debian/sid (linux 2.6.30, gcc 4.3.4, glibc 2.9) > - x86_32 system Thank you, too!