Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/05/28/15:02:41
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 02:57:20PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:24:31PM +0200, Vaclav Haisman wrote:
>>Somebody mentioned that malloc implementation could be the problem.
>>Dunno. I has also crossed my mind that another difference between
>>FreeBSD and Cygwin is implementation of C++ exceptions. Maybe the SJLJ
>>implementation that Cygwin AFAIK uses has too big overhead.
>
>To test this theory, I just tried replacing Cygwin's "Unwind" functions
>with those from mingw and saw a noticeable speed up in the execution of
>this program. I did this by extracting the contents of mingw's libgcc
>to a directory and then including unwind-c.o and unwind-sjlj.o on the
>command line when linking the test case. I had to modify the test case
>by adding these two lines to the bottom:
>
>int __mingwthr_key_dtor; int _CRT_MT;
>
>to avoid undefined symbol errors so this is obviously not intended as a
>complete solution.
>
>On doing this, the program went from taking 25 seconds to execute to
>taking 7 seconds to execute. That's still 4x slower than mingw but it
>is, nonetheless, a noticeable difference.
>
>Gerrit and Danny do you know what the difference between the mingw and
>cygwin implementations of these functions might be?
Two things that I meant to add:
- In case it isn't clear, Vaclav's theory is very plausible.
- The malloc implementation in Cygwin is Doug Lea's famous malloc
implementation. The locking of malloc should be, in the absence of
thread contention, accomplished by a the use of a fast
InterlockedIncrement/InterlockedDecrement so, even if malloc was
being called in this loop (which it isn't), this should not provide
excessive overhead.
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 -