X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<44C91F4A.8050404@cygwin.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:17:14 -0400
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20060112 Fedora/1.5-1.fc4.remi Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0
References:	<5519828 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <5528112 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<5528112.post@talk.nabble.com>
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

aldana wrote:
> when running a little program using CopyFile() under cygwin it is about as
> quick as totalcommander. so it must be the abstraction layer of cygwin which
> makes copying veeeery slow...


Not necessarily.  To draw that conclusion, you would want to compare the
implementation of 'cp' compiled natively ('gcc -mno-cygwin' for example)
with Cygwin's and your little program.  Only if the natively compiled
version performed much closer to your program using CopyFile() could you
conclude that Cygwin is to blame.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

--
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 -