Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:44:23 -0400
To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.1.4 vs 1.1.5 timings
Message-ID: <20001017144423.A11001@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
References: <20001017153210 DOT 20542 DOT qmail AT web114 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To: <20001017153210.20542.qmail@web114.yahoomail.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 08:32:10AM -0700

On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 08:32:10AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>>I assume that this is with a recently updated version of cygwin, right?
>>There were some changes to resource accounting (cpu time) in the recent
>>snapshots.
>
>I was using yesterday's snapshot for the timings.

Ah.  That explains the low cpu timings then.  I don't exactly understand
why, but the newer snapshots weren't accurately reporting timings.  In
fact, AFAICT, up until now, all Cygwin DLLs were inaccurate whenever an
exec*() was used.  But, recent snapshots were even more inaccurate than
what had gone before.

So, your elapsed time figures will probably show more cpu usage with today's
snapshot.

cgf