X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 03:21:54 -0700 From: clayne AT anodized DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin fork() Message-ID: <20060901102154.GB7444@ns1.anodized.com> References: <20060901100138 DOT GA7444 AT ns1 DOT anodized DOT com> <00b801c6cdaf$343b9a10$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00b801c6cdaf$343b9a10$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Assp-Spam-Prob: 0.00000 X-Assp-Whitelisted: Yes X-Assp-Envelope-From: clayne AT ns1 DOT anodized DOT com X-Assp-Intended-For: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:12:59AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > > Is it just me or is cygwin fork(), or a support syscall underneath, > > terribly slow for some reason? > > Some reason == "lack of O/S support". Yes I can understand that. I'm assuming there is some CreateProcess() magic happening behind the scenes. However, what I've noticed is that it is WAY slower than one would think it to be. -cl -- 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/