On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Herb Maeder <> wrote:
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
-= lots and lots of things snipped =-
Has anyone else gotten Herb's message 5 times (so far)?
Or is it just me?
This is always the answer to questions like thi
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Herb Maeder <> wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
-= lots and lots of things snipped =-
Has anyone else gotten Herb's message 5 times (so far)?
Or is it just me?
-Jason
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
P
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
On 20 Oct 2008 11:53:19 PDT, "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> Of course I needed an excuse to ask the question, surprised or curious
> either would have sufficed. So the implementation of a GNU/Posix stack
> over windows is expensive and that is understandable (I suffer from cross
> platform headaches all
Manning, Sid wrote:
I appreciate everyone's insight and I will definitely checkout
Mecklenburg's make book to get hard stats on the differences.
Mecklenburg's book is much better put to use as the definitive
reference for make :-)
Chapter 10 "Improving the Performance of make" pp182-195 is wh
> > "Manning, Sid" wrote:
> >
> >> I was surprised to see that I could compile much faster under VMware
> >> than on Cygwin on the same host.
> >
> > Why is that surprising?
>
> Well, I can see why it might be surprising to anyone who isn't aware in
> some
> detail exactly /how/ much work Cygw
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Long story short, this is probably not so much a Cygwin issue
as general Windows issue...
No, I think that's going too far. It's a mismatch between the Windows
and UNIX process models, and the fact that compilation via make(1) is
optimized for the latter.
Agreed. I was
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Ralph Hempel wrote:
> It looks like you're comparing compiling under Cygwin on the
> host machine to compiling under Linux on a VMWare machine running
> on the host and finding the second way faster.
Shocking!
> Long story short, this is probably not so much a Cyg
Brian Dessent wrote on 20 October 2008 18:30:
> "Manning, Sid" wrote:
>
>> I was surprised to see that I could compile much faster under VMware
>> than on Cygwin on the same host.
>
> Why is that surprising?
Well, I can see why it might be surprising to anyone who isn't aware in some
detai
"Manning, Sid" wrote:
> I was surprised to see that I could compile much faster under VMware than on
> Cygwin on the same host.
Why is that surprising? Cygwin and VMware work on entirely different
principles. Plus your chosen benchmark essentially tests the two
slowest aspects of Cygwin, proce
Manning, Sid wrote:
I've been happily using cygwin for many years but I recently loaded
VMware on my system and it seemed pretty snappy, so much so I decided
to see how it compared to native execution. I was surprised to see
that I could compile much faster under VMware than on Cygwin on the
sam
I've been happily using cygwin for many years but I recently loaded VMware on
my system and it seemed pretty snappy, so much so I decided to see how it
compared to native execution. I was surprised to see that I could compile much
faster under VMware than on Cygwin on the same host.
I past
26 matches
Mail list logo
