From: "Tim Prince" <tprince@computer.org>
To: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>, <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: cygwin vfork
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 08:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01f001c16c12$3615e420$98ed85ce@amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20011111082600.N-ZGFxv0dz3kYuLQSTtbPjLBRbQaGF7DSra_Kq_ikjY@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3BF018AD.9000105@ece.gatech.edu>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: cygwin vfork
> Seen on the XEmacs list:
>
> > In general the cygwin build is slower, I think this is for 3 main
> > reasons:
> >
> > 1) gcc optimization is not as good as MSVC
> > 2) The cygwin portability layer adds a lot of overhead especially
> > wrt file handling.
> > 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with
> > the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for
> > cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality.
>
> Does #3 make any sense? I thought we *had* a real vfork...perhaps it
> doesn't work well with large apps? Or is the author just blowing smoke?
>
> --Chuck
>
#1 doesn't make a great deal of sense either. I suppose it's possible to
set up ground rules under which MSVC would optimize better than gcc, but
it's not my experience.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-13 7:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-01 14:47 Charles Wilson
2001-11-01 16:27 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-01 20:08 ` Tim Prince [this message]
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Tim Prince
2001-11-01 20:56 ` AW: " Ralf Habacker
2001-11-02 1:17 ` Charles Wilson
2001-11-02 6:00 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson
2001-11-02 6:05 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` AW: " Ralf Habacker
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Ralf Habacker
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Christopher Faylor
2001-11-11 8:26 ` AW: " Ralf Habacker
2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='01f001c16c12$3615e420$98ed85ce@amr.corp.intel.com' \
--to=tprince@computer.org \
--cc=cwilson@ece.gatech.edu \
--cc=cygwin@cygwin.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).