Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 00:35:21 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.3.12-1: dramatic slowdown of compiled executable - 2nd attempt
Message-ID: <20020704043521.GA25484@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <OF70DAF341 DOT E3BFB4FE-ON86256BEC DOT 0016653A AT mmm DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <OF70DAF341.E3BFB4FE-ON86256BEC.0016653A@mmm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 11:21:27PM -0500, apjaworski AT mmm DOT com wrote:
>Then I replaced cygwin1.dll with version 1.3.10 and rerun the test.  I got
>10.7s total time and 8.7s user time.  This is almost 24-fold slowdown!

Calm down.  How about if *you* do a little more analysis and find out
where the slowdown occurs?  Is it in the fscanf code?  Is it simple
reading from the disk?  Writing to the disk?  Does it go away if you
stop using floats?

You can also use strace to find out where any slowdown occurs.  Compare and
contrast it between the two versions.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/