Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:06:30 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygwin vfork
Message-ID:	<20011112210630.GA25356@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<3BF018AD DOT 9000105 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3BF018AD.9000105@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 01:45:01PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Seen on the XEmacs list:
>
>> In general the cygwin build is slower, I think this is for 3 main
>> reasons:
>>
>> 1) gcc optimization is not as good as MSVC
>> 2) The cygwin portability layer adds a lot of overhead especially
>> wrt file handling.
>> 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with
>> the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for
>> cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality.
>
>Does #3 make any sense?  I thought we *had* a real vfork...perhaps it 
>doesn't work well with large apps?  Or is the author just blowing smoke?

We have had a sort-of-vfork that should be faster than fork since 1.3.3,
I think.  No idea what the VM goobledy-gook is referring to.

Cygwin's vfork is just black magic that eventually results in running
spawn(P_NOWAIT) rather than fork/exec.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -