X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:50:42 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Public Cygwin 1.7 test starts today Message-ID: <20081211025042.GA3571@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20081210203400 DOT GA15192 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <494061C2 DOT 9070306 AT etr-usa DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <494061C2.9070306@etr-usa.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:41:38PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> after a rather long period of time of development, > > Is this going to change for the next major release? There's an awful lot > to absorb in this one. If you mean for 1.9.x then there is no way to predict that. It's possible that the next major release will introduce cygwin2.dll. That would be a long time coming. > Is Cygwin now significantly faster? I don't know if anyone has done timings. Compiling Cygwin with gcc4 has decreased its size relatively speaking but I haven't look lately to see how it fares against cygwin-1.5.x. Given all of the features that Corinna added I think it's likely that 1.7.x is bigger and potentially slower to load. 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/