X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:26:02 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin 1.5 vs 1.7: speed Message-ID: <20091028132602.GH28753@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4AE82CE6 DOT 7090502 AT onevision DOT de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AE82CE6.7090502@onevision.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: 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 Oct 28 12:37, Roland Schwingel wrote: > Any clues? I just made an additional test compiling stock > libxml2-2.6.32 using the stock gcc3 coming with both cygwin versions > and I am coming to roughly the same numbers. Is 1.7 truly slower > than 1.5 or aren't all final optimizations done right now? Whether 1.7 is faster or slower depends on what you're doing and on what OS you're running. For instance, scanning local directories is about 60% faster in 1.7 while starting lots of processes is about 10% slower on Vista but about 5% faster on XP, according to my testing. Further optimization will be a task for post-1.7.1, while for 1.7.1 itself we're looking primarily for functionality. Having said that, if you find source code in Cygwin which could be improved, feel free to point it out. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple