Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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:	"Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:16:35 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.61.0506021302380.10282@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Message-ID:	<SERRANOXix4A2DreBBs0000026b@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>

----Original Message----
>From: Igor Pechtchanski
>Sent: 02 June 2005 18:08

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Sunil wrote:
> 
>>> amusingling enough -- their
>>> execution times are *slower* than cygwin's...  Of
>> 
>> this is a joke right? I found SFU to be at least 2-3
>> times faster in loading and executing programs in
>> general. Its too bad their POSIX imple. is less than
>> half baked and unuseable for building any package
>> OOTB.
> 
> Any favorable mention of SFU on this list had better be a joke. :-)
> 	Igor
> --


  ... or had better have a 'T' between the 'S' and the 'U'!

   :)


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


--
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 -