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 Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:36:02 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: merging mingw and cygwin Message-ID: <20031012043602.GC30014@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <3F886521 DOT 31297 DOT 165D351 AT localhost> <3F887339 DOT 30459 DOT 19CE318 AT localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F887339.30459.19CE318@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 09:16:41PM -0700, Paul G. wrote: >Msys is derived from Cygwin. However, it does not have the overhead >that Cygwin does, nor does Msys support the posix/unixy stuff that >Cygwin does...nor should it. You keep saying "overhead" as if you know what you're talking about. Either be more precise or stop making vague statements. Msys does do posix translations. It also does permutations on the command line that cygwin does not. I just ran a little test on msys and cygwin and found cygwin to be consistently faster, in fact. Here is what I tried: time bin\sh -c "for f in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20; do for g in 1 2 3 4 5; do ls /bin/ls.exe >/dev/null ; done; done" Of course, I cheated and used the cygwin that I've been working on which has some potential performance benefits but this version of cygwin was also compiled with --enable-debugging so it had some possible performance hits as well. cgf -- 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/