X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,RDNS_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4AE85092.3030702@onevision.de> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:09:22 +0100 From: Roland Schwingel User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin 1.5 vs 1.7: speed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Hi Corrinna... > On Oct 28 14:26, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Whether 1.7 is faster or slower depends on what you're doing and on what > > OS you're running. For instance, scanning local directories is about > > 60% faster in 1.7 while starting lots of processes is about 10% slower > > on Vista but about 5% faster on XP, according to my testing. Further > > optimization will be a task for post-1.7.1, while for 1.7.1 itself we're > > looking primarily for functionality. Understood. And the already achieved things like long pathnames and utf8 support are things which where highly needed. > > Having said that, if you find source code in Cygwin which could be > > improved, feel free to point it out. > > ...or, even better, send patches (*). I will for sure do more testings and maybe also debugging and whenever I find something useful - be asured that I'll post here... :-) Roland -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple