Re: cygwin vfork

["Tim Prince" <tprince at computer dot org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: cygwin vfork


> Seen on the XEmacs list:
>
>  > In general the cygwin build is slower, I think this is for 3 main
>  > reasons:
>  >
>  > 1) gcc optimization is not as good as MSVC
>  > 2) The cygwin portability layer adds a lot of overhead especially
>  > wrt file handling.
>  > 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with
>  > the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for
>  > cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality.
>
> Does #3 make any sense?  I thought we *had* a real vfork...perhaps it
> doesn't work well with large apps?  Or is the author just blowing smoke?
>
> --Chuck
>
#1 doesn't make a great deal of sense either.  I suppose it's possible to
set up ground rules under which MSVC would optimize better than gcc, but
it's not my experience.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/