On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 10:57 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/09/2018 10:53 AM, Janus Weil wrote: > > 2018-07-09 18:35 GMT+02:00 Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com>: > > > David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com>: > > > > > The truth is we're near the bleeding edge of what conventional tools > > > > > and hardware can handle gracefully. Most jobs with working sets as > > > > > big as this one's do only comparatively dumb operations that can be > > > > > parallellized and thrown on a GPU or supercomputer. Most jobs with > > > > > the algorithmic complexity of repository surgery have *much* smaller > > > > > working sets. The combination of both extrema is hard. > > > > > > > > If you come to the conclusion that the GCC Community could help with > > > > resources, such as the GNU Compile Farm or paying for more RAM, let us > > > > know. > > > > > > 128GB of DDR4 registered RAM would allow me to run conversions with my > > > browser up, but be eye-wateringly expensive. Thanks, but I'm not > > > going to yell for that help > > > > I for one would certainly be happy to donate some spare bucks towards > > beastie RAM if it helps to get the GCC repo converted to git in a > > timely manner, and I'm sure there are other GCC > > developers/users/sympathizers who'd be willing to join in. So, where > > do we throw those bucks? > > I'd be willing to throw some $$$ at this as well.
I may be misreading between the lines but I suspect Eric is more hoping to get everyone to focus on moving this through before the GCC commit count gets even more out of control, than he is asking for a hardware handout :). Maybe the question should rather be, what does the dev community need to do to help push this conversion through soonest?
