This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Why does windows have such probs with dynamically loaded libs?
- From: Linda Walsh <cygwin at tlinx dot org>
- To: "cygwin at cygwin dot com" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:59:15 -0700
- Subject: Re: Why does windows have such probs with dynamically loaded libs?
- References: <loom.20110529T133128firstname.lastname@example.org> <20110529233841.GC5283@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <loom.20110530T093057email@example.com> <20110530174649.GB14225@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4DE5773D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4DE579AC.email@example.com> <4DE58AE3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <BANLkTik0Bp0PAiCJS0ukT5NucR6R9=OLEw@mail.gmail.com>
Csaba Raduly wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Hmmm...I wonder...do you know if Interix setups COW pages on fork?
If so, why in the heck would it perform so much more slowly than cygwin
when running the same tasks (shell scripts and such that do lots of little
forks).... its performance was pretty bad next to cygwin, though that was
under XP, and several years back that I tested, so it may have changed).
Last year I investigated Services For Unix on Vista and found it to be
roughly on par with Cygwin in terms if compilation time of a complex
But that would be more compute bound where I'd expect
them to be more equal.
I was using a shell script that made many small util tr/cat/sed/...etc)
calls, and thus would have 'banged' on process forking, proportionately
more, than cpu-usage. I find C and C++ compilations (even though they can
take many processes), spend most of their time in compilation, which I'd
expect to be near identical ( barring differences in compiler's used to
compile the tools...etc)....
Eric Blake wrote:
Put yourself in Microsoft's shoes - why would you want to make it easier
for free software
If they wanted that, they would surely decide to enhance Windows
Services For Unix; after all they paid good money for the company that
But, since SFU doesn't even have a proper poll(2) implementation, I'm
not holding my breath.
Depends on the costs/benefits. They may have paid Interix to develop
it, but I would wager it's not used nearly as much as cygwin, even in the
corporate world. It might be easer from MS's perspective to give
cygwin more access to docs to cygwin could better integrate, than to
dump development money into the SFU product if MS's Corp customers are
already relying more on Cygwin. It could easily be seen as fiscal
mismanagement to be so wasteful and companies have been sued by stock
holders for being fiscally irresponsible.
But some stockholder with some legal-backbone would have to care enough
to push buttons and in the legal arena, comment sense and truth are
easily over-ridden by legal process and bovine-excrement.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple