Re: [PATCH 4/4] mark_parents_uninteresting(): avoid most allocation

2018-05-14 Thread Jeff King
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 09:25:46AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > I think you'd want to go the other way: this is marking uninteresting > > commits, so you'd want origin/master..master, which would make those 70k > > commits uninteresting. > > Thanks for the tip. Running 'git rev-list

Re: [PATCH 4/4] mark_parents_uninteresting(): avoid most allocation

2018-05-14 Thread Derrick Stolee
On 5/14/2018 9:09 AM, Jeff King wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 08:47:33AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: On 5/11/2018 2:03 PM, Jeff King wrote: Commit 941ba8db57 (Eliminate recursion in setting/clearing marks in commit list, 2012-01-14) used a clever double-loop to avoid allocations for

Re: [PATCH 4/4] mark_parents_uninteresting(): avoid most allocation

2018-05-14 Thread Derrick Stolee
On 5/11/2018 2:03 PM, Jeff King wrote: Commit 941ba8db57 (Eliminate recursion in setting/clearing marks in commit list, 2012-01-14) used a clever double-loop to avoid allocations for single-parent chains of history. However, it did so only when following parents of parents (which was an uncommon

[PATCH 4/4] mark_parents_uninteresting(): avoid most allocation

2018-05-11 Thread Jeff King
Commit 941ba8db57 (Eliminate recursion in setting/clearing marks in commit list, 2012-01-14) used a clever double-loop to avoid allocations for single-parent chains of history. However, it did so only when following parents of parents (which was an uncommon case), and _always_ incurred at least