From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27446 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2005 10:05:31 -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 Malingering List Received: (qmail 27434 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jun 2005 10:05:28 -0000 Received: from host217-40-213-68.in-addr.btopenworld.com (HELO SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:05:28 +0000 Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:05:20 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Linda W'" , Subject: RE: OoC Ironic assessment (was Serious performance problems (malloc related?)) Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:38:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <42A229BA.3080503@tlinx.org> Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2005-q2/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 ----Original Message---- >From: Linda W >Sent: 04 June 2005 23:23 > OoC! OoC!!! (Out of Context) and poppycock! I didn't speculate on the > problem, I speculated what made Window's 'File-Open's so slow. > This is a known problem. It wasn't speculation about what cygwin was > doing. ;-/ > > Unless, you are asserting that I haven't instrumented WinXP > to find it's performance bottlenecks, but that would hardly be > necessary to comment on performance issues concerning POSIX emulation > vs. native performance. > > Wind me up, you are trying, me thinks. *Plblblb* > > -l goshdarn my secret is out! cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....