Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990308133351.009bb950@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 13:33:51 -0500 To: hcobb AT telegenisys DOT com, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: Time taken for ls -la --color=yes In-Reply-To: <199903081826.NAA16303@acestes-fe0.ultra.net> References: <36E40422 DOT 157007C1 AT atos-group DOT com> <199903081638 DOT LAA11084 AT y11a165 DOT neo DOT rr DOT com> <36E40422 DOT 157007C1 AT atos-group DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:26 PM 3/8/99 -0500, Henry J. Cobb wrote: >Doesn't LS take a lot of time to count the entries in every subdirectory it >encounters (even when it never lists them) just in order to fill out the >stat structures it then throws away? > > Perhaps you can tell us, since you seem to imply that you know something about the way ls works. If it does work exactly as you suggest, then I would say there is cause to be concerned about ls, although that comment is based solely on yours and my incomplete understanding as to why ls would do this. Of course, if ls is doing this, it is outside the realm of the cygwin DLL, since it only provides services to ls. In this case, a patch may need to be made to ls and, quite possibly, for cygwin only. However, without more information, its hard to pursue the idea that either ls or cygwin could be patched to make ls faster... Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. (781) 239-1053 8 Grove Street (781) 239-1655 Wellesley, MA, 02482-7797 http://www.rfk.com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com