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
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2005 14:38:06 -0400
Message-ID:	<3D848382FB72E249812901444C6BDB1D03E04FD3@exchange.timesys.com>
From:	"Robb, Sam" <sam DOT robb AT timesys DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id j52Ij6hA032444

> OTOH, Corinna is hard at work adding low-level Nt* calls to cygwin so,
> if it wasn't for the requirement that everything has to work 
> on Windows
> 9x, the DLL would be smaller and faster.  Instead, every system call
> currently needs to have a "do this if it's NT and that if 
> it's 9x" test
> so "we" have been slow in moving to bypass the win32 api layer on
> Windows NT.
> 
> OTOH, we will rebuild it.  We do have the technology.

Is there any reason why the cygwin DLL couldn't be built
twice: once for Win9x, and once for WinNT-based systems?

Aside from potential installation issues ("install this
version of the DLL under 9x, that version under NT), it
seems like this would be a reasonable optimization.

-Samrobb


--
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 -