From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32169 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2009 14:35:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 32157 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2009 14:35:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-98-110-183-121.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (98.110.183.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:35:13 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944C613C065 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 58A772BD20; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:35:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Optimize cygwin on recent windows version (Vista and Seven) Message-ID: <20090617143501.GA1401@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com References: <7c6dcbb9c797277cc8ffb1fc985844af@mail.smartmobili.com> <3353982C81F6441590DD8E4B4C2D0841@desktop2> <50535.99.237.216.211.1245125771.squirrel@www.sidefx.com> <2bf229d30906160517t445a56d9o359cb26de95ea50c@mail.gmail.com> <4A38CC4A.8080908@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A38CC4A.8080908@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2009-q2/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:58:18AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >Vincent R. wrote: >>The next step would be to do some profiling but I am not expert with >>gprof. I think that Dave Korn already did something like that, I hope >>he will comment. > >I'm afraid you may have misremembered, or anyway, I don't recall the >occasion you're talking about. As far as I know, the newer OSes are >just dog slow, and I think the mingw figures you posted probably >confirm that. That doesn't mean that we mightn't be able to find a >critical hotspot by some profiling and figure a way round it OTOH. Heh. "We". Heh heh. cgf