From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 109848 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2016 01:21:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 109836 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jun 2016 01:21:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TVD_RCVD_IP autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Win10, win10, H*u:FreeBSD, H*UA:FreeBSD X-HELO: glup.org Received: from 216-15-121-172.c3-0.smr-ubr2.sbo-smr.ma.static.cable.rcn.com (HELO glup.org) (216.15.121.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:21:36 +0000 Received: from lister.boston.niksun.com (unknown [4.16.10.2]) by glup.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A2FF854D2; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:21:34 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: glup.org; dmarc=none header.from=glup.org Subject: Re: Vim responds too slow on the latest snapshot of cygwin1.dll To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20160606003303.ecd888597a40bd1081308452@nifty.ne.jp> <20160606084328.GD14744@calimero.vinschen.de> <20160606200532.c8f2353c277a1957095e69a5@nifty.ne.jp> <20160606145242.GB4919@calimero.vinschen.de> From: John Hood Message-ID: <2345c1b0-1a18-f445-2d45-4c29ac4e9055@glup.org> Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:21:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160606145242.GB4919@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 It has taken way too long to get a usable Win7 VM set up, but I can confirm that the 2.5.2.0.1 snapshot works well on Win7 with my test programs and fixes the issues noted in Corinna's commits, and is somewhat faster than 2.5.1. The snapshot's issues with Win7 were also worse than others have reported, I saw select() locking up and not responding to either timeout or events. Definitely something that should not have reached a release. I'll apologize for the bugs, they're clearly regressions from what I had done. I think I introduced bugs when I reworked the commits to eliminate changes to cygwait.h, and didn't test sufficiently (I'd migrated both my Win7 machines to Win10). regards, --jh On 06/06/2016 10:52, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jun 6 09:50, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> On 6 June 2016 at 07:05, Takashi Yano wrote: >>>> Just as John I can't reproduce this. What OS version do you run this >>>> on, and is it 32, 32 under WOW64, or 64 bit? >>> OS: Windows 7 (64bit) >>> Cygwin: Both 32bit and 64bit >>> >>> I have tested on two Win7 machines, and the problem >>> occurs on both machines. >>> >>> Further, this problem occurs in Windows 7, but does >>> not occur in Windows 10, as far as I tested. >>> >>> Can you possibly test on Win7 machine? >> I can confirm that I see this behaviour on 64bit Windows 7 running >> 64bit Cygwin using the newly released snapshot (06/06/16). If there >> is anything I can do to assist with debugging the issue please let me >> know. > Thanks for the offer. I could actually reproduce it on a W7 32 bit > machine. I found the problem and fixed it. While I was at it, I > improved the timer handling in select_stuff::wait a bit. > > What I'd *really* need now is people testing the latest snapshot on > https://cygwin.com/snapshots/ ASAP and throw at it what they can think > of. Is there still a regression compared to 2.5.1? If so, please > report. > > > Thanks to all of you, > Corinna > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple