Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <4298D87F.9030203@familiehaase.de> Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 22:45:51 +0200 From: "Gerrit P. Haase" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Ross CC: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) References: <4297A14B.9070409@plausible.org> <20050527234027.GA7522@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <4297B572.9050200@plausible.org> <20050528005054.GB7522@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <4297F984.3000800@plausible.org> <20050528061001.GA9254@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <42987F19.8070502@plausible.org> In-Reply-To: <42987F19.8070502@plausible.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Andy Ross wrote: > But as I noted in my original post: It's not waiting on the disk > reads. Comment out the split() call and watch the delays disappear. > Raw I/O speed in cygwin is comparable to mingw or MSVC. The overhead > is due, somehow, to activity within/under split(). Other than > allocation, that function doesn't do any meaningful library > interaction that I can see (although Vaclav's suggestion about > exception handling is a very good one...). Can you port the testcase you provided to C to see if it makes a difference, please? Gerrit -- =^..^= -- 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/