Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 22:51:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Vaclav Haisman To: "Gerrit P. Haase" Cc: Andy Ross , cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?) In-Reply-To: <4298D87F.9030203@familiehaase.de> Message-ID: <20050528225007.U63183@logout.sh.cvut.cz> References: <4297A14B.9070409@plausible.org> <20050527234027.GA7522@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <4297B572.9050200@plausible.org> <20050528005054.GB7522@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <4297F984.3000800@plausible.org> <20050528061001.GA9254@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <42987F19.8070502@plausible.org> <4298D87F.9030203@familiehaase.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com On Sat, 28 May 2005, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > Andy Ross wrote: > > But as I noted in my original post: It's not waiting on the disk > > reads. Comment out the split() call and watch the delays disappear. > > Raw I/O speed in cygwin is comparable to mingw or MSVC. The overhead > > is due, somehow, to activity within/under split(). Other than > > allocation, that function doesn't do any meaningful library > > interaction that I can see (although Vaclav's suggestion about > > exception handling is a very good one...). > > Can you port the testcase you provided to C to see if it makes a > difference, please? Or maybe at least try -fno-exceptions... VH -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/