From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:05:17 +0100 Message-ID: <8563zbpxde.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <4aca3dc20712051947t5fbbb383ua1727c652eb25d7e@mail.gmail.com> <20071205.202047.58135920.davem@davemloft.net> <4aca3dc20712052032n521c344cla07a5df1f2c26cb8@mail.gmail.com> <20071205.204848.227521641.davem@davemloft.net> <4aca3dc20712052111o730f6fb6h7a329ee811a70f28@mail.gmail.com> <20071206142254.GD5959@artemis.madism.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pierre Habouzit , Linus Torvalds , Daniel Berlin , David Miller , ismail@pardus.org.tr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: gcc-return-142750-gcc=m.gmane.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Dec 06 18:08:40 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 1J0KD6-0001NN-0a for gcc@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:08:28 +0100 Received: (qmail 4598 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2007 17:08:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 4588 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Dec 2007 17:08:09 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (140.186.70.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:08:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1J0KCb-00016N-1z; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:07:57 -0500 Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 3DC2D1C4CE16; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:05:16 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Thu, 6 Dec 2007 15:55:43 +0000 (GMT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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: Johannes Schindelin writes: > However, I think that --aggressive should be aggressive, and if you > decide to run it on a machine which lacks the muscle to be aggressive, > well, you should have known better. That's a rather cheap shot. "you should have known better" than expecting to be able to use a documented command and option because the git developers happened to have a nicer machine... _How_ is one supposed to have known better? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum