X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <81A9E9604FCC434BAB80FFD05ABD5B4B@desktop2> From: "Sisyphus" To: , References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Once more: performance on Vista Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:13:52 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.20661 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: . . > In particular, shell scripts (e.g. "configure" scripts) are ridiculously > slow, as is "make" on large projects I find Vista, XP and 2000 are all (roughly) equally slow. That is, I think it's a "Windows" thing rather than a "Vista" thing. I can build ('./configure' and 'make') and test ('make check') *both* GMP and MPFR on my linux box in the time it takes to run './configure' and 'make' for GMP *alone* on Cygwin. And that's the case irrespective of whether the Windows box is 2k, XP, or Vista. I have the impression that a build in the MSYS shell is slightly quicker than a build in Cygwin's bash shell - but I haven't timed a comparison and *could* be mistaken about that. Cheers, Rob -- 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/