From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9586 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2005 20:21:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maligning List Received: (qmail 9575 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jun 2005 20:21:42 -0000 Received: from c-66-30-17-189.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:21:42 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 23FE113C097; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:28:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: The Cygwin-Talk Maligning List Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) Message-ID: <20050602202133.GG8890@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maligning List References: <3D848382FB72E249812901444C6BDB1D03E04FD3@exchange.timesys.com> <20050602190022.GG6597@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20050602195048.GD8890@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-q2/txt/msg00349.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:55:50PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote: >> >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only >> >>people capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand >> >>Nt* calls. That is a subset of the already small number of people who >> >>understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin. >> > >> >You mean, like 2? (Err, 3. I mean, 4, or maybe 5..) >> > >> >I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know.. >> >> Just take a look at the number of people who have contributed to >> cygwin-patches in the last year or so. I wouldn't want to scare away >> the people who contribute trivial patches because they can't find any >> documentation on "NtCreateFile". >> >> I suppose *we* could produce documentation on the Nt* functions but >> that's also a support burden. > >If the Cygwin team had to write 9x wrappers for the Nt* functions, some >documentation would have to be part of the wrappers, wouldn't it? The theory is that Nt knowledgeable pepole could maintain a backend Nt* layer and everyone else could write to the standard Win32 API vs. exposing the Nt layer to everyone and requiring that people figure out the unfamiliar Nt* arguments if/when they want to make changes. But, Corinna and I haven't finished discussing how this would work yet so there are no guarantees how or if this will happen. cgf