This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Cygwin Performance and stat()


On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 08:43:50AM -0700, Christopher Wingert wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 01:24:29 -0400 Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On 06/04/2010 03:14 PM, Christopher Wingert wrote:
>>>He is?  Holy crap, he is more helpful with his sarcasm and doubt than
>>>anything else.
>>
>> Can't really parse that sentence.
>
>Then load your English parser.

It usually works pretty well.  I just can't parse how sarcasm and doubt
are "helpful" even when attempting to factor in an attempt at humor.

>> I haven't detected any "picking on" but then I can't claim to have
>> written the fhandler* code anymore Corinna has rewritten most of it.  I
>> do know that if you want to be taken seriously you really need to send a
>> concrete suggestion/patch.
>
>I don't know the right answer to the problem.
>
>BUT...  I have shown how to do achieve similar results to the dll, but
>with significantly less overhead.

No, you haven't.  You've shown how to provide less functionality with
less code.

>So...  the person who cared to improve his/her/its code would say,
>"Well we use NTOpenFile() because it does the blah blah extra
>functionality that FindNextFile()/GetFileAttributes() do not." Then we
>could look to other Win32 APIs to try to achieve those results.

I don't recall you actually asking a question along these lines.  You
seem to just keep making statements, expecting that your conclusions and
technical proficiency will be taken for granted.  And, when there are
specific responses to your observations, you don't seeem to address
them.

You seem to be under the impression that Corinna and I haven't already
had these conversations.  We have.

The person who really cared could inspect the history of the file where
NTOpenFile was used, tracing it back to when it used
FindNextFile/GetFileAttributes and try to glean that information for
themselves.

>For example opening a file on Windows for the purposes of stat()ing a file
>is dumb, considering the way most Windows Virus Scanners work.

Ah, now you're definitely picking on.  You're making a bald faced
accusation without offering an alternative.  How would you fill out all
of the fields in stat() without opening a file.

(And please don't loop around to the beginning of the discussion to
talk about how you could make a limited, faster version of stat().  We
already know that you can make things faster by doing less.)

>> So far, it seems to me that you're basically thinking out loud and
>> expecting us to fill in the blanks.  That's not an effective way to
>> getting anything changed.
>
>Yes, thinking out loud is an effective way for a team to work together. 
>You should try it....

I do think out loud with my "team".  You are not on it.

I'm trying to tell you how much effort I'm willing to put into this.  I
am not willing to listen to you ramble about what you think is a good
idea.  You are not really representing yourself as someone who knows
what they're talking about.  I'll say it again:

"All that being said, I think the best solution is not to optimize the dll
stat(), but to do it at the executable level.  I see that Cygwin already
has some level of patches at this level, it shouldn't be too difficult to
support."

Barring any clarification, which you don't seem to be providing, I can
only taking that as rambling nonsense.  I do not choose to spend a lot
of my time begging for clarification for nonsense.

cgf

--
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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]