Mail Archives: cygwin/1999/09/30/21:56:45
In a message dated 9/30/99 4:35:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
john DOT whitney AT ssmb DOT com writes:
> but why so long to
> compile?
>
> I'm a unix/gcc veteran but am very new to NT. (I don't dare make
> assumptions about what is going on under NT's hood yet).
You're certainly not alone in this observation. I find that cygwin-gcc
builds take an average of twice as long on NT4 as they do on W2K on the same
box at my office, and W2K runs 50% faster here at home on a similar speed but
much cheaper box intended for W95. And then, of course, linux builds at
least 50% faster than W2K. Some of the issues are whether the file system is
FAT16, FAT32, NTFS4, NTFS5, whether there are network drives, and whether
ntea is on (when relevant). Certainly, getting reasonable performance isn't
just a matter of falling off a log. Of course, NT isn't designed to
facilitate performance of bash and similar applications, so some people feel
they get enough better performance to prefer mingwin.
Tim
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -