Your results notwithstanding, my performance (if you want to call looping 'date's that) went down five-fold from what it was on XP 32-bit and corresponds to the figures posted at the beginning of the thread. And as to the bash not being "efficient shell", that may very well be but I think it would be naive to think that a fellow developer does not notice changes in his development environment as apparent as auto-completion or compilation -- routines repeated thousands of times over many years.
Obviously, there could be something else wrong in my setup as well, but I did ran similar tests through the native command shell and been timing my compilation times on MSVC. Everything is lightning-fast in comparison to my old dev env -- just not cygwin. -J Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > > bash is not an efficient shell : > > while : ; do date; done | uniq -c > > 5 Thu Feb 18 01:03:30 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:31 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:32 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:33 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:34 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:35 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:36 2010 > 5 Thu Feb 18 01:03:37 2010 > > let's try pdksh (well, not really more efficient) : > > 7 Thu Feb 18 01:03:38 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:39 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:40 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:41 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:42 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:03:43 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:44 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:45 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:46 2010 > 7 Thu Feb 18 01:03:47 2010 > > and ksh 93 : > > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:03:59 2010 > 7 Thu Feb 18 01:04:00 2010 > 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:01 2010 > 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:02 2010 > 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:03 2010 > 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:04 2010 > 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:05 2010 > 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:06 2010 > 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:07 2010 > 12 Thu Feb 18 01:04:08 2010 > > ksh88 is not so bad : > > 7 Thu Feb 18 01:06:47 2010 > 6 Thu Feb 18 01:06:48 2010 > 10 Thu Feb 18 01:06:49 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:50 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:51 2010 > 10 Thu Feb 18 01:06:52 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:53 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:54 2010 > 8 Thu Feb 18 01:06:55 2010 > 9 Thu Feb 18 01:06:56 2010 > > tests realised under cygwin 1.7 on a Q6600 in 32 bit mode (around 30% of > cpu usage) > > Cordialement, > > Cyrille Lefevre > -- > mailto:cyrille.lefevre-li...@laposte.net > > > > -- > 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 > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Slow-fork-issue---Win-x64-tp19538601p27645832.html Sent from the Cygwin list mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- 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
