delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
In-Reply-To: | <4DE58AE3.904@tlinx.org> |
References: | <loom DOT 20110529T133128-564 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20110529233841 DOT GC5283 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <loom DOT 20110530T093057-556 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20110530174649 DOT GB14225 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4DE5773D DOT 9040008 AT tlinx DOT org> <4DE579AC DOT 1040007 AT redhat DOT com> <4DE58AE3 DOT 904 AT tlinx DOT org> |
Date: | Wed, 1 Jun 2011 10:16:52 +0200 |
Message-ID: | <BANLkTik0Bp0PAiCJS0ukT5NucR6R9=OLEw@mail.gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Why does windows have such probs with dynamically loaded libs? |
From: | Csaba Raduly <rcsaba AT gmail DOT com> |
To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
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 |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p518HHGR015429 |
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: > Hmmm...I wonder...do you know if Interix setups COW pages on fork? > If so, why in the heck would it perform so much more slowly than cygwin > when running the same tasks (shell scripts and such that do lots of little > forks).... its performance was pretty bad next to cygwin, though that was > under XP, and several years back that I tested, so it may have changed). Last year I investigated Services For Unix on Vista and found it to be roughly on par with Cygwin in terms if compilation time of a complex C++ project. > Eric Blake wrote: >> Put yourself in Microsoft's shoes - why would you want to make it easier >> for free software If they wanted that, they would surely decide to enhance Windows Services For Unix; after all they paid good money for the company that made Interix. But, since SFU doesn't even have a proper poll(2) implementation, I'm not holding my breath. Csaba -- GCS a+ e++ d- C++ ULS$ L+$ !E- W++ P+++$ w++$ tv+ b++ DI D++ 5++ The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers. Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts. "Ok, it boots. Which means it must be bug-free and perfect. " -- Linus Torvalds "People disagree with me. I just ignore them." -- Linus Torvalds -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |