This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: BUG: Ability to access nonexistent directories
- From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:53:05 -0400
- Subject: Re: BUG: Ability to access nonexistent directories
- References: <000201ce52c4$891b04c0$9b510e40$%fedin at samsung dot com> <20130517083612 dot GE21752 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <000d01ce52dc$74e54bb0$5eafe310$%fedin at samsung dot com> <20130517102655 dot GG21752 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20130517145612 dot GC7087 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <001a01ce5550$9e20afd0$da620f70$%fedin at samsung dot com> <519A3E58 dot 4010609 at cygwin dot com> <000101ce55e9$6ab6f840$4024e8c0$%fedin at samsung dot com> <20130521061816 dot GC3786 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On 5/21/2013 2:18 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:07:03AM +0400, Fedin Pavel wrote:
Not to discourage you but there will be a fairly low tolerance for much
of a complexity change or almost any performance degradation. Cygwin's
performance is a regular source of complaints on this list (and
By the way... Right now i'm testing 64-bit Cygwin, and it appears to be
significantly faster. I wonder, did you do anything special to achieve this
? Or does this mean just that 32-bit API on 64-bit Windows is slow ?
The 64-bit port employed fewer hippos. As it turns out, they were terrible
And hippos aside (I think we all know how difficult it is to do that!),
64-bit proggies on 64-bit CPUs are supposed to be a little zippier anyway.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple