cygwin vfork
Tim Prince
tprince@computer.org
Sun Nov 11 08:26:00 GMT 2001
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: cygwin vfork
> Seen on the XEmacs list:
>
> > In general the cygwin build is slower, I think this is for 3 main
> > reasons:
> >
> > 1) gcc optimization is not as good as MSVC
> > 2) The cygwin portability layer adds a lot of overhead especially
> > wrt file handling.
> > 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with
> > the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for
> > cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality.
>
> Does #3 make any sense? I thought we *had* a real vfork...perhaps it
> doesn't work well with large apps? Or is the author just blowing smoke?
>
> --Chuck
>
#1 doesn't make a great deal of sense either. I suppose it's possible to
set up ground rules under which MSVC would optimize better than gcc, but
it's not my experience.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list