X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	"Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: cygwin fork()
Date:	Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:46:32 +0100
Message-ID:	<00b901c6cdb3$e3e36b10$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To:	<20060901102154.GB7444@ns1.anodized.com>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

On 01 September 2006 11:22, clayne AT anodized DOT PCYMTNQREAIYA wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:12:59AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Is it just me or is cygwin fork(), or a support syscall underneath,
>>> terribly slow for some reason?
>> 
>>   Some reason == "lack of O/S support".
> 
> Yes I can understand that. I'm assuming there is some CreateProcess()
> magic happening behind the scenes.  However, what I've noticed is that it
> is WAY slower than one would think it to be.

  Why, how slow were *you* expecting it to be?  I was expecting it to be 7.


    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 -