X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:22:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Peshansky <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc.
In-Reply-To: <eqacah$tma$1@sea.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0702061215200.28605@access1.cims.nyu.edu>
References: <020d01c748b4$62d8b170$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>   <45C69F2F DOT 2060300 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0702052348340 DOT 28605 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu>  <eqacah$tma$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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 Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> > > Will using shell wrappers noticably slow down calls to gcc?  Or should
> > > we just start explicitly calling i686-pc-cygwin-gcc instead?  (FWIW
> > > Gentoo does the equivalent of the latter.)
> >
> > I don't think speed itself will be a problem, unless the scripts are
> > really naive and involve lots of forks.  However, as I noted before,
> > scripts cannot be invoked from non-Cygwin programs.
>
> ...but doesn't the script itself involve a fork? On a big project, with
> an extra fork for every source file, that can still add up.

Don't forget that invoking the gcc executable from make or the shell
involves a fork anyway.  If gcc is 'exec'ed from the script, there will
only be the fork that invokes the shell, versus the fork that would have
invoked the executable.

I was referring to the scripts calling "grep", "sed", etc, to process the
options instead of using the bash builtin commands which don't involve
forks.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu | igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Freedom is just another word for "nothing left to lose"...  -- Janis Joplin

--
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/