Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: N8TM AT aol DOT com
Message-ID: <ac312d96.25256e7d@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:55:09 EDT
Subject: Re: why gcc.exe compilation SLOW on NT?
To: john DOT whitney AT ssmb DOT com, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/30/99 4:35:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
john DOT whitney AT ssmb DOT com writes:

> but why so long to
>  compile?
>  
>  I'm a unix/gcc veteran but am very new to NT.  (I don't dare make
>  assumptions about what is going on under NT's hood yet).
You're certainly not alone in this observation.  I find that cygwin-gcc 
builds take an average of twice as long on NT4 as they do on W2K on the same 
box at my office, and W2K runs 50% faster here at home on a similar speed but 
much cheaper box intended for W95.  And then, of course, linux builds at 
least 50% faster than W2K.  Some of the issues are whether the file system is 
FAT16, FAT32, NTFS4, NTFS5, whether there are network drives, and whether 
ntea is on (when relevant).  Certainly, getting reasonable performance isn't 
just a matter of falling off a log.  Of course, NT isn't designed to 
facilitate performance of bash and similar applications, so some people feel 
they get enough better performance to prefer mingwin.

Tim

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com