Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/06/27/19:44:42
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:50PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 03:42:05PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>
>> >Digging deeper, I see there is a function getc_unlocked. Using it
>> >instead of getc improves the speed by a factor 5.
>> >Now that I know about it, I will redefine getc to getc_unlocked when
>> >porting single threaded applications.
>> >
>> >That issue may be a factor in the legendary slowness of Cygwin.
>>
>> FWIW, I added some code to this particular locking function to avoid
>> doing any locks if there is only one thread. I'm generating a snapshot
>> now. It will be interesting to see if it improves things. I didn't
>> do any benchmarking. I just verified that it worked the way I thought
>> it should by looking at strace output.
>
>Here it is, using a slightly modified version of Joseph's program
>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-06/msg00877.html
>
>Your change makes getc work almost as fast a getc_unlocked.
>This is on Win98. Yesterday's results were on WinME, where the
>differences were larger. That hard drive died this morning :(
Sorry to hear that. I've been going through hard disk problems
myself.
Thanks for verifying that the change worked.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -