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
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	RE: A Simple Real World Benchmark for cygwin
Date:	Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:05:14 -0400
Message-ID:	<3D848382FB72E249812901444C6BDB1D69BB8F@exchange.timesys.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
From:	"Robb, Sam" <sam DOT robb AT timesys DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g83G8PA03080

> That's not the point.  The application *may* call CoInit() before
> requesting the first path to a shortcut and it *may* call CoUninit()
> before requesting another path to a shortcut, all in the same thread.

Would creating a seperate thread for the purpose of executing
Cygwin-originated COM calls be an answer?  Wouldn't be as fast
as assuming CoInit has already been called, but would probably
be faster than calling CoInit/CoUninit for every shortcut check.

-Samrobb

--
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 -