X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:19:31 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0 Message-ID: <20060727201931.GD3409@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <5519828 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <5528112 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <44C91F4A DOT 8050404 AT cygwin DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44C91F4A.8050404@cygwin.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 04:17:14PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >aldana wrote: >>when running a little program using CopyFile() under cygwin it is about >>as quick as totalcommander. so it must be the abstraction layer of >>cygwin which makes copying veeeery slow... > >Not necessarily. To draw that conclusion, you would want to compare >the implementation of 'cp' compiled natively ('gcc -mno-cygwin' for >example) with Cygwin's and your little program. Only if the natively >compiled version performed much closer to your program using CopyFile() >could you conclude that Cygwin is to blame. Of course, cygwin and gcc don't use CopyFile at all, so this is really just a read/write loop. 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/