X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org F38FA385DC2B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cs.umass.edu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu Subject: Re: Using ARM GNU GCC with Cygwin To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, Andrey Repin , Kaz Kylheku <920-082-4242 AT kylheku DOT com> References: <51717d4a9c861fd90b5f9a58b84b308a AT mail DOT kylheku DOT com> <1239492934 DOT 20200405004017 AT yandex DOT ru> From: Eliot Moss Message-ID: <6daa2aa8-b2b6-1f71-c787-06340d05644e@cs.umass.edu> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 17:56:37 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1239492934.20200405004017@yandex.ru> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" On 4/4/2020 5:40 PM, Andrey Repin wrote: > Greetings, Kaz Kylheku! > >> On 2020-04-04 02:00, Ben wrote: >>> Is there something else I'm missing? > >> That by cross-compiling for your targets on Cygwin instead of a real >> POSIX OS, you will something like double your compile times, if not >> more. > > Proof, please. I would agree with the statement, at least subjectively. There are various things that I build on Linux, even in Linux virtual machines running on the same Windows laptop, and Cygwin builds take perceptibly longer. Some of this is down to the cost of fork() no doubt -- configure, and perhaps gcc itself, tend to spin off lots of short jobs, which tends to expose the fork overhead. Not sure if anything else is slower. Obviously the main part of the computation in the compiler is the same. Regards - Eliot Moss -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple