X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
From: "Dave Korn" <dave DOT korn AT artimi DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: cygwin fork()
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:46:32 +0100
Message-ID: <00b901c6cdb3$e3e36b10$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <20060901102154.GB7444@ns1.anodized.com>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

On 01 September 2006 11:22, clayne AT anodized DOT PCYMTNQREAIYA wrote:

> 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.

  Why, how slow were *you* expecting it to be?  I was expecting it to be 7.


    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/