Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Mikhail Teterin Message-Id: <200212211447.gBLElNsH041540@corbulon.video-collage.com> Subject: Re: poor performance -- is Cygwin to blame?.. In-Reply-To: <1040424904.bd9d0620tprince@myrealbox.com> To: Timothy C Prince Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:47:23 -0500 (EST) CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.21 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) > In my experience with MPI programs, comparing cygwin and linux, > message passing takes longer under cygwin, but the time may be made up > elsewhere, if the compilation is truly similar. > > You mention that considerable time is spent in log(), pow(), exp() > but leave us guessing how you implemented them. I did not implement them. They are from whatever -lm means on Cygwin. I use them to compute my own formula repeatedly for hundreds of different vectors. > Then you imply that you think cygwin, rather than your math functions, > is the speed determining factor, without giving us a means to judge. They are not mine. There must be a misunderstanding... > The glibc versions of these functions are much faster than the newlib > versions, particularly if you permit the use of . > Neither approach the potential of pentium4, but the simplest way to > speed them up on cygwin is to employ something like , > and to provide your own pow() (or to use a compiler and library which > targets pentium4). Can this be done with just CFLAGS? I really don't want to pollute my code with ``#ifdef CYGWIN''... Thank you, -mi -- 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/