ksh93?

ksh93?

[Christopher Faylor]

I just read David Korn's question and answer session on SlashDot and found
out that ksh93 is now open-sourced.

I was wondering if anyone had built this on Cygwin.

Anyone?

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93?

[Matthew Smith]

I'm still working on it.  I sort of lost interest though, now that zsh runs
so smoothly under cygwin (no more status access violations, yay!).
    The slashdot piece was interesting, but I had to disagree with a number
of his points.  Especially the bits about uwin versus cygwin.  Uwin has lots
of clever ideas, but it's executed very poorly.  It's been extremely
unstable in my experience.  I downloaded version 2.25 of it around a week
ago to see if it had improved, and promptly trashed it.  Cygwin all the way,
baby.

cheers,
-Matt Smith


> I just read David Korn's question and answer session on SlashDot and found
> out that ksh93 is now open-sourced.
>
> I was wondering if anyone had built this on Cygwin.
>
> Anyone?
>
> cgf
>



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 09:56:43PM -0600, Matthew Smith wrote:
>I'm still working on it.  I sort of lost interest though, now that zsh runs
>so smoothly under cygwin (no more status access violations, yay!).

Was this due to cygwin or zsh changes, or both?

Do you want to make a zsh available on cygwin.com?  I'll set you up with
an account so that you can upload copies, there, if so.

>    The slashdot piece was interesting, but I had to disagree with a number
>of his points.  Especially the bits about uwin versus cygwin.  Uwin has lots
>of clever ideas, but it's executed very poorly.  It's been extremely
>unstable in my experience.  I downloaded version 2.25 of it around a week
>ago to see if it had improved, and promptly trashed it.  Cygwin all the way,
>baby.

I'm glad to hear that.

Can you give an example of some of the clever ideas in uwin?  I know that
they have some sort of setuid daemon or something like that but it has been
a while since I really investigated U/WIN.

Since I have to come up with a roadmap for Cygwin at some point, it might be
nice to know where another product has gone so that I could shamelessly steal
some ideas.

I thought that it was interesting that David Korn said that U/WIN may soon be
open sourced.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93?

[Earnie Boyd]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I just read David Korn's question and answer session on SlashDot and found
> out that ksh93 is now open-sourced.
>
> I was wondering if anyone had built this on Cygwin.
>
> Anyone?

I've downloaded it but haven't had a round tuit.  However, I seem to remember
some people posting about it on the list.

Earnie.


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Matthew Smith]

> Was this due to cygwin or zsh changes, or both?

Cygwin changes.  I'm not sure which version of the dll fixed the problems.
Just that I recompiled it again the other day, and things work well.

> Do you want to make a zsh available on cygwin.com?  I'll set you up with
> an account so that you can upload copies, there, if so.

Sure, I'd be happy to.  I should probably touch base with Corinna about the
changes she had to make to tcsh in regards to text/binary issues.

> Can you give an example of some of the clever ideas in uwin?  I know that
> they have some sort of setuid daemon or something like that but it has
been
> a while since I really investigated U/WIN.

    I liked the /dev/clipboard idea.  I mentioned this awhile ago, and I
believe someone implemented this at least partially in cygwin - Charles was
it?
    Uwin also has a wrapper around Visual C++ that will parse unix style
args, and then convert them to the appropriate VC++ args.  That type of
thing would be useful to me from a work perspective, as we use our own make
system along with VC++.  If you have VC++ installed, Uwin will grab the root
directory of it from the registry, and mount it on something like /msdev.
    The other thing it does in regards to mounts, is mount the system
directory in a standard place, and IIRC, it will mount the registry as a
filesystem.  Now whether this is a good idea or not is certainly debateable.
Can you imagine the enraged emails from newbies that have just trashed their
OS install after manipulating the registry?
    As you pointed out, the setuid stuff is a good idea.  Nothing else comes
to mind off the top of my head.

> Since I have to come up with a roadmap for Cygwin at some point, it might
be
> nice to know where another product has gone so that I could shamelessly
steal
> some ideas.

I agree completely.

> I thought that it was interesting that David Korn said that U/WIN may soon
be
> open sourced.

Ditto.

cheers,
-Matt Smith


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:48:49PM -0600, Matthew Smith wrote:
>>Can you give an example of some of the clever ideas in uwin?  I know
>>that they have some sort of setuid daemon or something like that but it
>>has been a while since I really investigated U/WIN.
>
>I liked the /dev/clipboard idea.  I mentioned this awhile ago, and I
>believe someone implemented this at least partially in cygwin - Charles
>was it?

Yep.  Charles implemented a read-only version of /dev/clipboard.  It
would be nice for someone to augment this.  I don't think I could sell
devoting development time for this, though.

>Uwin also has a wrapper around Visual C++ that will parse unix style
>args, and then convert them to the appropriate VC++ args.  That type of
>thing would be useful to me from a work perspective, as we use our own
>make system along with VC++.  If you have VC++ installed, Uwin will
>grab the root directory of it from the registry, and mount it on
>something like /msdev.

This would be another hard sell.  I wouldn't mind including a wrapper in
the Cygwin installation, though, assuming that we could make it
selectable somehow.  I even wrote one of these in a past life.

>The other thing it does in regards to mounts, is mount the system
>directory in a standard place,

I'm not sure I know what you mean by this.

>it will mount the registry as a filesystem.

I've always thought that this was an interesting idea.  Someone (Egor
Duda?) has indicated that it isn't as easy as it sounds.  I think that
someone has actually done a proof of concept of this, too.

>Now whether this is a good idea or not is certainly debateable.  Can
>you imagine the enraged emails from newbies that have just trashed
>their OS install after manipulating the registry?

Shudder.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Dennis McCunney]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 2001. February 7. 23:02
> To: Cygwin
> Subject: Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question
>
> > The slashdot piece was interesting, but I had to
> > disagree with a number of his points.  Especially
> > the bits about uwin versus cygwin.  Uwin has lots
> > of clever ideas, but it's executed very poorly.
> > It's been extremely unstable in my experience.  I
> > downloaded version 2.25 of it around a week ago to
> > see if it had improved, and promptly trashed it.
> > Cygwin all the way, baby.
>
> I'm glad to hear that.

I DL'ed it a while back.  I once worked for a systems house that was an AT&T
reseller, back when AT&T still made computers.  Great technology, and no
clue about marketing.

I got reminded of that when I DLed U/Win -- though I was quite careful about
how I filled out the questionnaire you must complete before you can DL, I
didn't get the "free-for-non-commercial-use" version, I got a thirty day
trial version that was _already_ expired.  I had a lot of fun filling out
their "What do you think of the product?" follow-up survey.  I'm not sure I
was responsible, but the _next_ time I DLed it, I didn't have a problem...

It installed with no trouble, and seems to work, save for the Control Panel
applet, but I haven't had a chance to look at it closely.

> Can you give an example of some of the clever ideas in uwin?
> I know that they have some sort of setuid daemon or something
> like that but it has been a while since I really investigated
> U/WIN.

The main thing of interest is that Global Technologies, Ltd, the commercial
liscensing outfit that sells supported commercial versions of U/WIN, has
successfully ported GNOME to it.  They claim it took under two weeks to port
4 million lines of code, and less than one hundred lines of source changes
were required.

Unfortunately, it _won't_ run under the "free-for-non-commercial-use"
version of U/Win -- GTL apparently had to make some U/WIN compatibility
fixes that haven't been folded back into the master AT&T Research sources
yet.  You need an X-server and the trial version of the commercial edition
of U/WIN to play with it.  (I have no idea if XFree86 will work - they
mention Hummingbrid Exceed and WRQ Reflections.)

Go to http://www.gtlinc.com/gnome-desktop.html for information.

> Since I have to come up with a roadmap for Cygwin at some
> point, it might be nice to know where another product has gone
> so that I could shamelessly steal some ideas.
>
> I thought that it was interesting that David Korn said that
> U/WIN may soon be open sourced.

Ksh is, so U/WIN is a logical successor.  They may be adopting the "make the
code and the product free, sell service and support" model.  I suspect the
answers to the "would you _buy_ this as a commercial product, and what would
you pay for it?" questions on thier survey were discouraging.

> cgf
_________________________
Dennis McCunney
mccunney@bellatlantic.net


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Matthew Smith]

> >The other thing it does in regards to mounts, is mount the system
> >directory in a standard place,
>
> I'm not sure I know what you mean by this.
>

By 'system directory', I mean the equivalent of C:\WINNT\System32.  In fact,
I think there are separate mounts for C:\WINNT and C:\WINNT\System32.  I
believe the equivalents on Win9x are C:\Windows, and C:\Windows\System?

Here's another bit from the Uwin page about things it will do:
"File control locking: UNIX file control advisory locking is supported by
UWIN with deadlock detection".
I'm not sure how tricky it would be to implement, but I bet the people
trying to port sendmail/postfix type stuff would be overjoyed at the
prospect of something like this.

cheers,
-Matt


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Dennis McCunney]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 2001. February 7. 23:57
> To: Cygwin
> Subject: Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

...

> >it will mount the registry as a filesystem.
>
> I've always thought that this was an interesting idea.  Someone (Egor
> Duda?) has indicated that it isn't as easy as it sounds.  I think that
> someone has actually done a proof of concept of this, too.

I got a utility from an Italian site that would put the registry in My
Computer, and let you view/manipulate it via an Explorer style interface.
It was hedged about with "Danger! If you don't know what you're doing, don't
muck about with this!" warnings.

> >Now whether this is a good idea or not is certainly debateable.  Can
> >you imagine the enraged emails from newbies that have just trashed
> >their OS install after manipulating the registry?
>
> Shudder.

I'd like to _think_ such folks wouldn't be installing U/WIN in the first
place, but I've been wrong before...

> cgf
______
Dennis



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:01:33AM -0500, Dennis McCunney wrote:
>>Can you give an example of some of the clever ideas in uwin?  I know
>>that they have some sort of setuid daemon or something like that but it
>>has been a while since I really investigated U/WIN.
>
>The main thing of interest is that Global Technologies, Ltd, the
>commercial liscensing outfit that sells supported commercial versions
>of U/WIN, has successfully ported GNOME to it.  They claim it took
>under two weeks to port 4 million lines of code, and less than one
>hundred lines of source changes were required.

Yeah, I saw that.  I imagine that porting to Cygwin would be similar.  Hmm.
I think it may already be done.  Should we announce this to the world, too?

I got contacted by one of the people from Global Technologies a while ago.
He was asking about the Cygwin Xfree86 project that Suhaib Siddiqi is heading.

He saw a lot of "overlap between the product lines" and was picking my
brains for exactly how much of the Xfree86 port and gcc he could package
with his software.  My feeling was that he wanted to find out how much
he could use for free.

I would be thrilled to collaborate with the guys at AT&T but somehow I don't
see much happening with the people who are trying to sell U/WIN commercially.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 11:13:03PM -0600, Matthew Smith wrote:
>Here's another bit from the Uwin page about things it will do:
>"File control locking: UNIX file control advisory locking is supported by
>UWIN with deadlock detection".
>I'm not sure how tricky it would be to implement, but I bet the people
>trying to port sendmail/postfix type stuff would be overjoyed at the
>prospect of something like this.

Hmm.  I imagine that this also requires a daemon.  That's an interesting
one.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Matthew Smith]

> The main thing of interest is that Global Technologies, Ltd, the
commercial
> liscensing outfit that sells supported commercial versions of U/WIN, has
> successfully ported GNOME to it.  They claim it took under two weeks to
port
> 4 million lines of code, and less than one hundred lines of source changes
> were required.

Check out:
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/12/09/0341259.shtml

Sounds like they had to spend 3 months of time tweaking the posix.dll in
Uwin to get things working correctly.

cheers,
-Matt


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Mumit Khan]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> >I'm still working on it.  I sort of lost interest though, now that zsh runs
> >so smoothly under cygwin (no more status access violations, yay!).

Regarding ksh93, it's actually not that hard to port to Cygwin, once you 
figure out AT&T's build system. I've been using AT&T sources for many 
years, since the initial days of cfront, so it doesn't look that foreign 
to me. I've been way too busy with real life, and just haven't had the
time to tweak the various pieces yet (pathname handling, enhanced spawnv*
style api for cygwin, without using UWIN specific code, to speed things up,
etc). My shell scripts run under vendor ksh or bash, so I personally don't 
need it as much. 

> Can you give an example of some of the clever ideas in uwin?  I know that
> they have some sort of setuid daemon or something like that but it has been
> a while since I really investigated U/WIN.

Here's my take on this, and it's quite simple. A few years ago, when you
wanted Unix on PC with the feel of Unix, you had 3 or 4 choices, and the
prominent ones were Softway/Interix/now-Microsoft (which uses POSIX
subsystem, so different beast altogether), Cygwin and UWIN. UWIN provided
almost a real Unix feel right after you installed it, and that made a lot
of users feel more comfortable than the old pre v1.0 Cygwin layout scheme.
It also installed things like inetd etc right off the bat, and it just
made things easier. There were also little things like handling of hard
links and a few others.

In terms of technology, UWIN's process management was certainly much
faster (have not benchmarked against any recent Cygwin versions, so
please don't ask me how it compares now), and I/O subsystem using sfio
is *much* better. The system runtime uses AST library, which is also
very well done. Newlib is perhaps a good choice for an embedded system,
and while it's getting better, it still lacks of lot of features of a
modern hosted C runtime. The newlib math library is, ah how should I put 
it, not that great. UWIN has the advantage of leveraging MSVC runtime, 
which has a decent fp math library.

As an aside, those of you who go way back may remember the whole
debate about why Cygwin used newlib instead of GNU libc in the first
place (was it Fergus Henderson who started that thread?), but let's not
start that thread again since Geoffrey Noer et al had discussed the
rationale in some detail.

UMS/UCS in UWIN is certainly good technologies, which are "daemons" that
handle authentication. Cygwin has made huge progress in that area of
course.

> I thought that it was interesting that David Korn said that U/WIN may soon be
> open sourced.

That's what I hear as well; however, there are still remaining issues from 
I understand (AT&T is a big company, with lots of legal issues, and these
issues pay a lot of salaries ;-). I'd venture a guess for this motivation
(other than the usual go open source hoopla) -- one is the "mainstream"
popularity of Cygwin, thanks to all the work that's gone in since b19, and
more imporantly, the position of FSF that GCC can't be run under UWIN.

Two years ago, I had a contract to deliver a large software modeling and
simulation package for Windows based machine, and UWIN was the one that
I had to pick to get the work done. Now it's a whole different issue --
another research group within the same corporate entity gets the sources
from our CVS repo, builds it using locally using Cygwin and runs it very 
happily.

There's room for multiple competitors in this field, and that's good
thing. That's why we have Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, other BSD's, Solaris
and probably a few others running on Intel hardware, all doing their
own thing.

Cygwin will thrive as long as contributors keep on chugging, with very 
valuable corporate support from RedHat. Making these tools commercially 
viable is a hard job, not that I feel for the marketing and sales 
types ;-)

Regards,
Mumit



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Zsh on Cygwin

[Andrej Borsenkow]

>
> I'm still working on it.  I sort of lost interest though, now that zsh runs
> so smoothly under cygwin (no more status access violations, yay!).

What version of Zsh are you running? I ask because there is at least one old
(zpty) and one new (^Z suddenly stopped to work) problem in current Zsh CVS.
Unfortunately, I still did not get around to looking into it more closely,
mostly because there does not seem to be much demand. And I'm using it on too
casual basis myself. So, any help is appreciated.

-andrej


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Zsh on Cygwin

[Matthew Smith]

I'm using zsh 3.1.9 right now.  I haven't tried the cvs version of zsh.  In
terms of the ^Z problems, is that a problem with zsh, or cygwin?  There has
been some discussion lately about cygwin and ^Z.

cheers,
-Matt

> What version of Zsh are you running? I ask because there is at least one
old
> (zpty) and one new (^Z suddenly stopped to work) problem in current Zsh
CVS.
> Unfortunately, I still did not get around to looking into it more closely,
> mostly because there does not seem to be much demand. And I'm using it on
too
> casual basis myself. So, any help is appreciated.
>
> -andrej
>
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: Zsh on Cygwin

[Andrej Borsenkow]

>
>
> I'm using zsh 3.1.9 right now.  I haven't tried the cvs version of zsh.  In
> terms of the ^Z problems, is that a problem with zsh, or cygwin?  There has
> been some discussion lately about cygwin and ^Z.
>

I know. It looks like zsh problem - bash works O.K., also I'm using the latest
released cygwin. Recently there was a zsh patch that deals with signals (to
prevent asynchronous signal handler execution at some points) that may account
for this.

I'll have to check with older cygwin1.dll.

-andrej


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Christoph Rippel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Mumit Khan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:06 PM
> To: Cygwin
> Subject: Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question
> 
> 
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> > >I'm still working on it.  I sort of lost interest though, now that zsh runs
> > >so smoothly under cygwin (no more status access violations, yay!).
> 
> Regarding ksh93, it's actually not that hard to port to Cygwin, once you 
> figure out AT&T's build system. I've been using AT&T sources for many 
> years, since the initial days of cfront, so it doesn't look that foreign 
> to me. I've been way too busy with real life, and just haven't had the
> time to tweak the various pieces yet (pathname handling, enhanced spawnv*
> style api for cygwin, without using UWIN specific code, to speed things up,
> etc). My shell scripts run under vendor ksh or bash, so I personally don't 
> need it as much. 
> 
> > Can you give an example of some of the clever ideas in uwin?  I know that
> > they have some sort of setuid daemon or something like that but it has been
> > a while since I really investigated U/WIN.
> 
> Here's my take on this, and it's quite simple. A few years ago, when you
> wanted Unix on PC with the feel of Unix, you had 3 or 4 choices, and the
> prominent ones were Softway/Interix/now-Microsoft (which uses POSIX
> subsystem, so different beast altogether), Cygwin and UWIN. UWIN provided
> almost a real Unix feel right after you installed it, and that made a lot
> of users feel more comfortable than the old pre v1.0 Cygwin layout scheme.
> It also installed things like inetd etc right off the bat, and it just
> made things easier. There were also little things like handling of hard
> links and a few others.
> 
> In terms of technology, UWIN's process management was certainly much
> faster (have not benchmarked against any recent Cygwin versions, so
> please don't ask me how it compares now), and I/O subsystem using sfio
> is *much* better. The system runtime uses AST library, which is also
> very well done. Newlib is perhaps a good choice for an embedded system,
> and while it's getting better, it still lacks of lot of features of a
> modern hosted C runtime. The newlib math library is, ah how should I put 
> it, not that great. UWIN has the advantage of leveraging MSVC runtime, 
> which has a decent fp math library.

Don't know if this is relevant but it is possible to compile
sfio-2000 under cygwin (not the threaded version of course) 
and almost all of the sfio tests actually succeeded (a couple
of month ago). The license is BSD style if I remember correctly.
The url is  www.research.att.com/sw/tools/sfio .

 [..]

Christoph
 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question

[Dr. Volker Zell]

>>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Rippel <crippel@primenet.com> writes:


    Christoph> Don't know if this is relevant but it is possible to compile
    Christoph> sfio-2000 under cygwin (not the threaded version of course) 
    Christoph> and almost all of the sfio tests actually succeeded (a couple
    Christoph> of month ago). The license is BSD style if I remember correctly.
    Christoph> The url is  www.research.att.com/sw/tools/sfio .

Only one test failed:

treserve.c:
     Failed

    Christoph> Christoph

Ciao
  Volker


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: ksh93? -- also u/win question & sfio

[Christoph Rippel]

>     Christoph> Don't know if this is relevant but it is possible to compile
>     Christoph> sfio-2000 under cygwin (not the threaded version of course) 
>     Christoph> and almost all of the sfio tests actually succeeded (a couple
>     Christoph> of month ago). The license is BSD style if I remember correctly.
>     Christoph> The url is  www.research.att.com/sw/tools/sfio .
Hm,
> Only one test failed:
on my machine 
> treserve.c:
>      Failed
> 
>     Christoph> Christoph
> 
> Ciao
>   Volker
- guess I have a breakin;-)

FWIW here are some benchmarks results (a PII-laptop) of the
stdio benchmark suite that come with sfio-2000 (I had to 
disable 2 seek tests because they crashed the sfio version).  

time.sfio 
func    real    user    sys     u+s     size    Kbytes  Kbytes/s
wrlarge 96.63   0.33    8.50    8.83    20000K  20000   2264
rdlarge 5.85    4.00    1.67    5.67    20000K  20000   3529
wrsmall 133.68  4.00    11.52   15.52   20000K  20000   1288
rdsmall 74.60   7.02    1.35    8.37    20000K  20000   2390
copy    269.23  4.00    14.52   18.52   40000K  40000   2160
sfmove  276.73  0.33    6.33    6.67    40000K  40000   6000
putc    60.75   5.52    4.52    10.03   10000K  10000   996
getc    5.33    3.67    0.17    3.83    10000K  10000   2608
puts    79.28   5.67    7.50    13.17   100000L 9765    741
gets    123.02  4.18    0.67    4.85    100000L 9765    2013
sfgetr  4.67    3.83    0.85    4.68    100000L 9765    2085
revgets 7.18    3.85    3.17    7.02    100000L 9765    1391
printf  11.18   5.33    0.67    6.00    25000L  1752    292
scanf   6.83    5.83    0.00    5.83    25000L  1752    300
elapse  1155.48 57.57   61.75   119.32  0E      0       0

time.stdio (normal stdio i.e libcygin.a version 1.1.8 )
func    real    user    sys     u+s     size    Kbytes  Kbytes/s
wrlarge 111.32  2.33    18.52   20.85   20000K  20000   959
rdlarge 7.18    3.17    3.83    7.00    20000K  20000   2857
wrsmall 108.32  8.52    21.53   30.05   20000K  20000   665
rdsmall 34.38   4.33    4.35    8.68    20000K  20000   2303
copy    241.68  6.02    28.70   34.72   40000K  40000   1152
sfmove  0.17    0.00    0.17    0.17    0K      0       0
putc    75.78   23.70   10.68   34.38   10000K  10000   290
getc    27.87   18.52   3.00    21.52   10000K  10000   464
puts    58.25   6.85    10.68   17.53   100000L 9765    556
gets    8.35    4.67    2.52    7.18    100000L 9765    1359
sfgetr  0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0L      0       -1
revgets 15.85   7.18    6.17    13.35   100000L 9765    731
printf  17.70   14.35   2.17    16.52   25000L  1752    106
scanf   6.50    6.18    0.17    6.35    25000L  1752    276
elapse  713.35  105.82  112.48  218.30  0E      0       0

It is possible to compile many (well I tried only a few of
course) programs with a small amount of work with  the sfio
version of stdio instead of the regular stdio in libcygwin.

Christoph



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple