Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
Thu Jun 2 18:58:00 GMT 2005
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Robb, Sam wrote:
> > OTOH, Corinna is hard at work adding low-level Nt* calls to cygwin so,
> > if it wasn't for the requirement that everything has to work on
> > Windows 9x, the DLL would be smaller and faster. Instead, every
> > system call currently needs to have a "do this if it's NT and that if
> > it's 9x" test so "we" have been slow in moving to bypass the win32 api
> > layer on Windows NT.
> > OTOH, we will rebuild it. We do have the technology.
> Is there any reason why the cygwin DLL couldn't be built
> twice: once for Win9x, and once for WinNT-based systems?
> Aside from potential installation issues ("install this
> version of the DLL under 9x, that version under NT), it
> seems like this would be a reasonable optimization.
As long as we're mulling over ideas...
Alternatively, one could write a helper library that implements Nt*
low-level calls on Win9x (as wrappers around the current Win9x
functionality), and then Cygwin itself would only need to test once
whether it's running on 9x, to load the extra helper code.
|\ _,,,---,,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ email@example.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin