X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=UJ2exibLgCC/qFJD
	EIBwpsqRvcyd44I2CDrBulZ9toWXYr3495LS3UnwD1Aqxcog5DqPiFvQjH5qtDnI
	QAZqxOcecIpEIcGR7FzYINOzATQzOfkZMi0UleKTMWdbMisGLqx887QnAGOBIk0s
	k/tGLVU8v46SjFt3nG6YS0v8PRw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:reply-to:subject:to:references:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=vlttRVEjbktyP2mBezC7I8
	hcInQ=; b=xml7VZYj9Tw0cmrntQCnXhBNQLicPLcUz0Mkpf/hnU89rAD5U6bCgv
	WgLH36xbrrECV7xaU7K2GHRtDiHPgg3zuGGT7xHNBGiRaeMqrgLEAVkxziLo/U6M
	NUkhDdJibBOvNREJjO3VNS+o4XCH0Ykl5mF8a11BzCxwiO6tePci0=
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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=eliot, moss, Moss, warranted
X-HELO: mailsrv.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu
Subject: Re: calloc speed difference
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CAD8GWsvxzFe0dPnxO-odTY+EG5XOAApLjcOSN5d7vXhtLW0GmQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
From: Eliot Moss <moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
Message-ID: <1f0f6e79-57ef-1f02-f673-81826948adfc@cs.umass.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 03:38:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD8GWsvxzFe0dPnxO-odTY+EG5XOAApLjcOSN5d7vXhtLW0GmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 1/12/2018 2:19 AM, Lee wrote:
> Why is the cygwin gcc calloc so much slower than the
> i686-w64-mingw32-gcc calloc?

Since your test repeatedly allocates and frees one chunk
of size 100 Mb (ouch!) my guess is that the slow behavior is
rooted in something to do with mmap.  Perhaps Corinna
or another internals expert can explain why large mmap
requests would be a problem for cygwin -- and perhaps it
is something that could be improved if the effort is
warranted ...

Eliot Moss

--
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