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
