Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
From: "Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:16:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0506021302380.10282@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Message-ID: <SERRANOXix4A2DreBBs0000026b@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>

----Original Message----
>From: Igor Pechtchanski
>Sent: 02 June 2005 18:08

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Sunil wrote:
> 
>>> amusingling enough -- their
>>> execution times are *slower* than cygwin's...  Of
>> 
>> this is a joke right? I found SFU to be at least 2-3
>> times faster in loading and executing programs in
>> general. Its too bad their POSIX imple. is less than
>> half baked and unuseable for building any package
>> OOTB.
> 
> Any favorable mention of SFU on this list had better be a joke. :-)
> 	Igor
> --


  ... or had better have a 'T' between the 'S' and the 'U'!

   :)


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


--
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/