X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <494092AE.6060902@etr-usa.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:10:22 -0700
From: Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Public Cygwin 1.7 test starts today
References: <20081210203400 DOT GA15192 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <494061C2 DOT 9070306 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20081211025042 DOT GA3571 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To: <20081211025042.GA3571@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:41:38PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> after a rather long period of time of development, 
>> Is this going to change for the next major release?  There's an awful lot 
>> to absorb in this one.
> 
> If you mean for 1.9.x then there is no way to predict that.

I was just asking about intentions.  Do the core developers *want* to 
pile up new features and breakages over a period of many years and 
release them in a huge batch, or do you prefer to release smaller 
batches more often?

My preference is clearly written between the lines, but I only want to 
know what your preference is, not change it.

> It's possible that the next major release will introduce cygwin2.dll.  That
> would be a long time coming.

Do you have a sense for what would make the next major release 
cygwin2.dll and not cygwin1.dll?  Obviously an API or ABI breakage would 
require a new DLL name, but do you have something on the wish list that 
would require that, which was put off this time around?

> Given all of the features that Corinna
> added I think it's likely that 1.7.x is bigger and potentially slower to
> load.

Yes, the v1.7 cygwin1.dll I just downloaded is about 28% larger than the 
current v1.5 DLL.  This doesn't worry me.  0.7 MB is about 4 cents worth 
of RAM and disk space.  (Yes, I checked.  I'm such a geek.)  Load time 
is irrelevant to me, because I run cron; the DLL stays loaded all the 
time.  I guess the larger size could make it overflow CPU caches more 
often, but the L3 cache on Intel's newest desktop CPU is about 3.5x 
larger than the v1.7 cygwin1.dll.

What I was really asking is about execution time.  Does it run faster 
with all those if (win9x()) { ... } else { ... } logic forks removed? 
Or conversely, perhaps there's new completeness or correctness code that 
slows some things down?

--
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/