From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12747 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2005 20:28:18 -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 12735 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jun 2005 20:28:14 -0000 Received: from pop-savannah.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO pop-savannah.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (207.69.195.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:28:14 +0000 Received: from user-2inifb2.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.61.98] helo=efn.org) by pop-savannah.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1DdwIW-0004M2-00 for cygwin-talk@cygwin.com; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:28:12 -0400 Received: by efn.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:28:13 -0700 Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:30:00 -0000 From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes To: The Cygwin-Talk Maligning List Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) Message-ID: <20050602202812.GA1580@efn.org> References: <3D848382FB72E249812901444C6BDB1D03E04FD3@exchange.timesys.com> <20050602190022.GG6597@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20050602195048.GD8890@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20050602202133.GG8890@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050602202133.GG8890@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-SW-Source: 2005-q2/txt/msg00350.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:21:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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. Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main list?