mike marchywka wrote:
On 9/17/10, SJ Wright wrote:
4. Is it normal for any script to run CPU usage up to 100%?
Unless it is blocking for something like IO including VM swaps, why not?
Regarding #4:
I have a script that I ran in GNOME Terminal less than an hour ago. I
"time"d it
On 09/18/2010 05:35 AM, SJ Wright wrote:
Is there any reason, when bash itself nowadays has pretty good
tab-completion, why bash-completion is still available in setup.exe or
elsewhere in the Luniverse?
Yes. Builtin bash completion ONLY targets command names (in the first
shell word) and file
Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
Le 17/09/2010 18:57, SJ Wright a écrit :
4. Is it normal for any script to run CPU usage up to 100%?
a common answer about bash cpu usage is to get rid of bash-completion...
if you have it installed, uninstall it, then try again.
Regards,
Cyrille Lefevre
T
On 9/17/10, SJ Wright wrote:
>
> 4. Is it normal for any script to run CPU usage up to 100%?
Unless it is blocking for something like IO including VM swaps, why not?
>
> Regarding #4:
> I have a script that I ran in GNOME Terminal less than an hour ago. I
> "time"d it -- the return was 20.6 sec
On 9/17/2010 6:46 PM, SJ Wright wrote:
The above message:http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-09/msg00568.html I
have found other messages that discuss the 100% CPU load issue in previous
versions of Cygwin. No wonder no one's bothered to answer my questions yet --
evidently one should take it a
SJ Wright wrote:
Hi folks.
Through fits and starts, and with no more feedback from the list than
Dave Korn's self-admitted "wild guess" about gcclib1 folders etc, my
Cygwin is no longer shedding empty shell stack-dump files like
dandruff. But certain things are continuing to alarm me. I'll pu
6 matches
Mail list logo
