Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:12:26 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin slow on x64 systems
Message-ID: <20100831151226.GB11833@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4C7CA209 DOT 60603 AT onevision DOT de> <20100831140842 DOT GA11833 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4C7D0F3F DOT 4050700 AT sidefx DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C7D0F3F.4050700@sidefx.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:18:39AM -0400, Edward Lam wrote:
>On 8/31/2010 10:08 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Here's what I'm saying: It makes absolutely no sense that moving the
>>call would have any effect.  The code is the way it is for a reason so
>>we're not going to just revert the change.
>
>I don't think anyone is asking to revert the change.

Don't be too sure.  I'm sure that is the knee-jerk reaction of many
reading the observations.

>In any case, is it absolutely necessary for us to call 
>wait_for_sigthread() before we do the other initialization in 
>dll_crt0_1() ? ie. can we move it further down? Or perhaps we can 
>reorder the initialization code somewhat such that we can do more work 
>before calling wait_for_sigthread()?

If you are capable of building from source then you can answer these
questions for yourself.  This is not terrifically complicated code we're
talking about here.

cgf

--
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