public inbox for cygwin-xfree@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
       [not found] <4D41C8F2.8030509@purdue.edu>
@ 2011-01-27 19:37 ` wxie
  2011-01-27 19:52   ` Larry Hall (Cygwin X)
  2011-01-27 20:07   ` marco atzeri
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: wxie @ 2011-01-27 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin-xfree

In the ROOT downloading website: 
http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-versio
n-528
It says:
"Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very 
poor; we only pro
vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recommend to use the 
version above compiled with VC++. The ROOT team will not answer any 
messages related to problems with the win32gcc version"

What's the reason of the poor performance. Is there any way to improve that?

Thanks
--Wei


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
  2011-01-27 19:37 ` complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries wxie
@ 2011-01-27 19:52   ` Larry Hall (Cygwin X)
  2011-01-27 20:07   ` marco atzeri
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Larry Hall (Cygwin X) @ 2011-01-27 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin-xfree

On 1/27/2011 2:36 PM, wxie wrote:
> In the ROOT downloading website:
> http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-version-528
> It says:
> "Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very poor; we
> only pro vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recommend to use
> the version above compiled with VC++. The ROOT team will not answer any
> messages related to problems with the win32gcc version"
> What's the reason of the poor performance. Is there any way to improve that?

If you're posting something about Cygwin's gcc or Cygwin in general, the
better list is cygwin at cygwin dot com.  As for the statement above, I
think you're better off asking the folks that are responsible for making
the statement.  There's obviously some overhead to the emulated environment
that Cygwin provides but I can't say whether the statement is a general
reference to this issue or to something more specific.

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
  2011-01-27 19:37 ` complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries wxie
  2011-01-27 19:52   ` Larry Hall (Cygwin X)
@ 2011-01-27 20:07   ` marco atzeri
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: marco atzeri @ 2011-01-27 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin-xfree

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:36 PM,  wrote:
> In the ROOT downloading website:
> http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-versio
> n-528
> It says:
> "Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very poor; we
> only pro
> vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recommend to use the
> version above compiled with VC++. The ROOT team will not answer any messages
> related to problems with the win32gcc version"
>
> What's the reason of the poor performance. Is there any way to improve that?
>
> Thanks
> --Wei

In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4
solved a lot such problem.
I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin
is slower than an equivalent
native build as he try to replicate the UNIX/Posix enviroment in an
unfriendly MS-Windows word.

My experience porting octave says that gcc-4 is much better but I have
no idea of ROOT needs.

Regards
Marco

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
  2011-01-27 22:22 Angelo Graziosi
@ 2011-01-28  5:14 ` marco atzeri
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: marco atzeri @ 2011-01-28  5:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: cygwin-xfree

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Angelo Graziosi  wrote:
> Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>
>> In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4
>> solved a lot such problem.
>> I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin
>> is slower than an equivalent
>> native build as he try to replicate the UNIX/Posix enviroment in an
>> unfriendly MS-Windows word.
>>
>> My experience porting octave says that gcc-4 is much better but I have
>> no idea of ROOT needs.
>
> I follow the development of ROOT under Cygwin since ROOT-3, and there wasn't
> really big problems: each time, when prompted, they was always fixed by ROOT
> people.
>
> The performances of ROOT under Cygwin are good enough (at least with by
> builds with gcc4 compilers). Obviously Cygwin isn't a native GNU/Linux and
> often the performances are influenced by AV security applications..
>
> Ciao,
> Angelo.

the last is true but AntiVirus affect negatively also native
MS-Windows application :-((
so it is not a cygwin problem.

Marco

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
@ 2011-01-27 22:22 Angelo Graziosi
  2011-01-28  5:14 ` marco atzeri
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Angelo Graziosi @ 2011-01-27 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: XCygwin

Marco Atzeri wrote:
> In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4
> solved a lot such problem.
> I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin
> is slower than an equivalent
> native build as he try to replicate the UNIX/Posix enviroment in an
> unfriendly MS-Windows word.
>
> My experience porting octave says that gcc-4 is much better but I have
> no idea of ROOT needs.

I follow the development of ROOT under Cygwin since ROOT-3, and there 
wasn't really big problems: each time, when prompted, they was always 
fixed by ROOT people.

The performances of ROOT under Cygwin are good enough (at least with by 
builds with gcc4 compilers). Obviously Cygwin isn't a native GNU/Linux 
and often the performances are influenced by AV security applications..

Ciao,
Angelo.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-28  5:14 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <4D41C8F2.8030509@purdue.edu>
2011-01-27 19:37 ` complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries wxie
2011-01-27 19:52   ` Larry Hall (Cygwin X)
2011-01-27 20:07   ` marco atzeri
2011-01-27 22:22 Angelo Graziosi
2011-01-28  5:14 ` marco atzeri

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).