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 From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:16:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ----Original Message---- >From: Igor Pechtchanski >Sent: 02 June 2005 18:08 > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Sunil wrote: > >>> amusingling enough -- their >>> execution times are *slower* than cygwin's... Of >> >> this is a joke right? I found SFU to be at least 2-3 >> times faster in loading and executing programs in >> general. Its too bad their POSIX imple. is less than >> half baked and unuseable for building any package >> OOTB. > > Any favorable mention of SFU on this list had better be a joke. :-) > Igor > -- ... or had better have a 'T' between the 'S' and the 'U'! :) 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/