Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:36:21 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive
Message-ID: <20030908153621.GE5065@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20030905124047 DOT GD1852 AT tishler DOT net> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0309051113580 DOT 26266 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <20030905190127 DOT GB4483 AT redhat DOT com> <20030906004249 DOT GO1852 AT tishler DOT net> <20030907042805 DOT GA22596 AT redhat DOT com> <20030907043021 DOT GA22644 AT redhat DOT com> <20030908115016 DOT GC2128 AT tishler DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030908115016.GC2128@tishler.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:50:16AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>Chris,
>
>On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:30:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:28:05AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:42:49PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
>> >>On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:01:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >>> If the only concern is that cygcheck takes a long time, now, then,
>> >>> like I said, that is something that can be rectified.
>> >>
>> >>Yes, the above is my real concern.
>> >
>> >I just hacked cygcheck to avoid calling gzip and use a mingw libz.a
>> >(courtesy of Chuck Wilson) and it takes 26 seconds to complete on my
>> >dual PIII 733MHZ WinXP system.  I have most packages installed.
>> >
>> >Is that still too slow?
>> 
>> I should add that the previous version took 1 minute, 9 seconds.
>
>Approximately 3 time faster is a significant improvement, but IMO,
>anything more than a few seconds is still too "expensive."
>
>What about an option to disable the sanity checking?  In this way,
>Cygwin users do not need to learn new tricks, but powers user still get
>the control they desire.
>
>BTW, I tried to give cygcheck from the 2003-Sep-08 snapshot a ride.  The
>ChangeLog and diff seem to indicate the required changes have been
>completed.  Unfortunately, my timing showed no difference and objdump
>showed no dependency on Mingw zlib:
>
>    $ objdump -p cygcheck.exe | fgrep 'DLL Name:'
>            DLL Name: msvcrt.dll
>            DLL Name: msvcrt.dll
>            DLL Name: ADVAPI32.DLL
>            DLL Name: KERNEL32.dll
>
>Is the above cockpit error on my part?

Well, sort of, if you are expecting cygcheck to be linked with a mingw
zlib DLL.  zlib is linked statically.

I don't know why you aren't seeing a speedup.  It's substantial on my
system.  On my PII 500 at work, the difference is 55 seconds for the new
cygcheck and 1:29 on the old.  That's not as good as my previously
posted figures but it should still be noticeable.  In fact, if you are
running from a console window you can even see the difference in that
the title bar doesn't flicker.

cgf

--
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/