From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Giovanni Bajo Subject: Re: Git and GCC Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:26:54 +0100 Message-ID: <4759AC8E.3070102@develer.com> References: <20071206.193121.40404287.davem@davemloft.net> <20071207063848.GA13101@coredump.intra.peff.net> <9e4733910712062310s30153afibc44a5550fd9ea99@mail.gmail.com> <20071207.045329.204650714.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , jonsmirl@gmail.com, peff@peff.net, nico@cam.org, dberlin@dberlin.org, harvey.harrison@gmail.com, ismail@pardus.org.tr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: gcc-return-142824-gcc=m.gmane.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Dec 07 21:27:23 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcc@gmane.org Received: from sourceware.org ([209.132.176.174]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J0jn8-00012I-1C for gcc@gmane.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:27:22 +0100 Received: (qmail 9047 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2007 20:27:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 9032 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Dec 2007 20:27:02 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from trinity.develer.com (HELO trinity.develer.com) (89.97.188.34) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:26:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 19514 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2007 20:26:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.3.3.186?) (rasky@10.3.3.186) by trinity.develer.com with ESMTPA; 7 Dec 2007 20:26:45 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.git In-Reply-To: Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org Archived-At: On 12/7/2007 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks? >> I should run oprofile... > > SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But we > have a good optimized version there. > > zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the uncompression: it > may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_ much more that it > totally dominates). Have you considered alternatives, like: http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/ -- Giovanni Bajo