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: Sat, 28 May 2005 22:51:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Vaclav Haisman To: "Gerrit P. Haase" Cc: Andy Ross , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) In-Reply-To: <4298D87F.9030203@familiehaase.de> Message-ID: <20050528225007.U63183@logout.sh.cvut.cz> References: <4297A14B DOT 9070409 AT plausible DOT org> <20050527234027 DOT GA7522 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4297B572 DOT 9050200 AT plausible DOT org> <20050528005054 DOT GB7522 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4297F984 DOT 3000800 AT plausible DOT org> <20050528061001 DOT GA9254 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <42987F19 DOT 8070502 AT plausible DOT org> <4298D87F DOT 9030203 AT familiehaase DOT de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Sat, 28 May 2005, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > Andy Ross wrote: > > But as I noted in my original post: It's not waiting on the disk > > reads. Comment out the split() call and watch the delays disappear. > > Raw I/O speed in cygwin is comparable to mingw or MSVC. The overhead > > is due, somehow, to activity within/under split(). Other than > > allocation, that function doesn't do any meaningful library > > interaction that I can see (although Vaclav's suggestion about > > exception handling is a very good one...). > > Can you port the testcase you provided to C to see if it makes a > difference, please? Or maybe at least try -fno-exceptions... VH -- 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/