Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Copy-on-write fork
Date:	Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:35:03 -0500
Message-ID:	<NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKAEHMCNAA.g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
In-Reply-To:	<20020420021808.GA648@redhat.com>
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance:	Normal

cgf wrote:

> I assume that one possible reason is that the copy-on-write fork may be
> somehow bypassing normal in-memory sharing of text segments but I never
> knew for sure.
>

Have either of you tried this comparison on XP, to see if it's any different
there?  I'm running XP here, if Chris J. wants to put the c-o-w DLL up somewhere
so I can download it and try it.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.


--
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 -