From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44279 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2015 15:00:02 -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 44240 invoked by uid 89); 3 Nov 2015 15:00:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (HELO alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu) (18.7.68.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:59:56 +0000 Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 54.8C.31759.9EBC8365; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as jjreisert@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id tA3Exq0H003019 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:59:53 -0500 Received: by igdg1 with SMTP id g1so81742853igd.1 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 06:59:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.117.5 with SMTP id ka5mr17898161igb.58.1446562792663; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 06:59:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.116.78 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 06:59:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Cygwin64 vs. Cygwin (speed) From: Jim Reisert AD1C To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 In another thread, I wrote (and Corinna replied): >> I have tried 64-bit Cygwin in the past. I do a lot of file I/O and >> sorting/searching on largish test-based data sets, and 64-bit was >> noticeably slower than 32-bit Cygwin, > > Hmm, I usually have the opposite impression... I'm using malloc/calloc, is there a different memory allocator I should be using for Cygwin64? Thanks - Jim -- Jim Reisert AD1C, , http://www.ad1c.us -- 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