Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/05/26/16:18:41
Dave Korn wrote:
> On 26 May 2006 16:38, mwoehlke wrote:
> [snip]
>> Way way back in the OP, I mentioned that Interix doesn't have this
>> problem, which would imply a "design flaw" in Cygwin. Maybe (probably)
>> it is a *necessary* design flaw, BUT...
>
> You are now piling pointless and incorrect speculation on your invalid and
> groundless assumptions. This is a waste of time.
I don't consider reducing the possible cause of the to be a waste of time.
On ONE computer, I am running the same command from the same NFS mount,
using bash-3.1 in both cases (Interix is 3.1.0, Cygwin is 3.1.17). That
is a /number/ of controlled variables, with Cygwin/Interix being the
obviously different one. Under those circumstances, I observe a very
noticeable difference in execution times.
If that isn't a "bug" - and the (constructive) responses I have gotten
seem to think it isn't - then it is a problem with the implementation of
Cygwin on top of the Windows subsystem. I classify that as "a problem
inherent in the design which is necessitated by the underlying
architecture". Please try to understand that I am not attempting to
insult Cygwin. In fact, I am trying to shift blame *away* from Cygwin!
> [snip]
> See if you can find out where that line of code comes from. Then read the
> source code to the MSVCRT version of stat, which is shipped with VC, to see
> how it gets the timestamps etc. Then disassemble FindFirstFileExW in windbg
> and see whether or not it opens the files that it calls.
>
> Then post again and explain how you think interix could stat a file without
> having an open handle to it.
Interix is a different /subsystem/, with a totally different means of
interacting with the underlying file system (particularly NFS) than the
Windows subsystem. It probably doesn't make anything even resembling the
same systems calls as Cygwin.
> Then post again and explain how you managed to tell that cygwin's having to
> open the file is a substantial part of the speed difference between cygwin and
> interix without having once read the source, profiled the code, or timed or
> tested anything.
Sigh. Go back and read my OP. Notice that I attached an strace. Explain
to me that the detailed profiling/timing information does not qualify as
"profiling" or "time testing". Please do not make patently false claims
that I have not attempted to diagnose the problem.
I will of course keep the list up to date of any pertinent findings.
--
Matthew
Feed the hippo. Love the hippo. Run from the hippo.
--
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 -