Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:08:43 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin slow on x64 systems
Message-ID: <20100831140842.GA11833@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4C7CA209 DOT 60603 AT onevision DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C7CA209.60603@onevision.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:32:41AM +0200, Roland Schwingel wrote:
>Hi Sagi and all others,
>
>Thanks Sagi for your investigation!
>
>This is great news that it could finally be tracked down. I am also 
>suffering badly here from this
>speed drop. I haven't yet tried myself to revert this change to see 
>whether it brings back speed
>but will certainly try to do so soon.
>
>What are our cygwin gurus (CGF,Corinna,?) saying about this?  Can the
>results of these investigations be incorporated in a change in an
>upcoming version to get a more performant cygwin version?

Here's what I'm saying:  It makes absolutely no sense that moving the
call would have any effect.  The code is the way it is for a reason
so we're not going to just revert the change.

cgf

--
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