Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:01:26 -0400 To: cygwin developers Subject: Re: confirmation of 1.1.5(0.29/3/2) 2000-10-16 build Message-ID: <20001016140126.A12757@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin developers References: <20001016175227 DOT 25788 DOT qmail AT web111 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: <20001016175227.25788.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:52:27AM -0700 On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:52:27AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote: >Much improved processing. I was able to build without incident. CPU usage >still high but not constantly so that other processes can respond >interactively. I was unable to cause the bash exiting problem with this build. > I have *not* updated my bash and ash with Corinna's new fixes as I didn't want >that variable to enter into the results. Timing results: > > Command being timed: "ls --color -l /bin" > User time (seconds): 0.09 > System time (seconds): 0.22 > Percent of CPU this job got: 11% > Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:02.62 > >/bin is mounted > d:\Cygwin-1.1\bin /usr/bin user binmode,cygexec > d:\Cygwin-1.1\bin /bin user binmode,cygexec Strange. I just duplicated the problem ten minutes ago. I wasn't really expecting it, of course. I'm feverishly trying to cause it to fail again. One thing that I noticed is that the bash command prompt was returning prior to command execution. That's usually an indication of something being screwed up in the 'exec()' code. Coincidentally enough, that's what I've been working on for the last several months "in my spare time". I'm obviously doing something to improve things, though. I wish I knew what... AFAICT, 1.1.5 is still as much as 18% slower than 1.1.4. I don't know when this happened. I'm tracking this down, too. Have you timed the build with 1.1.4 vs. 1.1.5, Earnie? I suspect that you'll see slower execution? cgf