Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/08/02/21:28:10
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 02:11:00AM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
>Christopher Faylor schrieb:
>>On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:11:07PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>On Jul 27 13:48, aldana wrote:
>>>>isn't there a possibitly that cygwin provides a quicker
>>>>cp-implementation? i mean 4 minutes for a copy of 70MB to a memstick
>>>>(instead of CopyFile() 20 sec.) is not really good performance. i
>>>>guess there is a reason for that...
>>>Right, how did you know? The reason is that cp is a portable
>>>implementation using simple reads and writes to perform the copy.
>>>There's no such thing as a CopyFile routine on POSIX systems.
>>
>>A few weeks ago there was a guy in libc-alpha mailing list complaining
>>that glibc's API wasn't as rich and powerful as what is found on Windows.
>>
>>As far as I know he's still alive.
>
>Well, this brave guy has a point. :)
He wasn't brave. He was stupid. He didn't understand what glibc was
supposed to be providing and he wouldn't understand it even when it was
explained to him.
>I'm really seeing the non-optimized cygwin cp behaviour causing bad
>reputation, which could be easily patched and maybe even accepted
>upstream. Who knows. Eric what do think? Would it be worthful to think
>about?
If this is what you want then you should look into a non-cygwin
solution. There are a couple of projects which provide GNU tools for
Windows without resorting to something like the Cygwin DLL.
Also, don't you see something wrong with the mindset of "Windows Fast.
Cygwin Slow. So, must use straight Windows functions." without even
bothering to do any research into what is causing the slowness? How do
you, or anyone who cares about this know that this "problem", know that
it isn't correctable without resorting to patching cp?
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 -