2008/10/14, Sylvain Le Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 14-10-2008, Adrien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2008/10/14, Sylvain Le Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> On 14-10-2008, Adrien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> 2008/10/14, Daniel Bünzli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> >>>>> Le 14 oct. 08 à 09:59, David Allsopp a écrit : >>>>> >>> Another information, I have various benchmark on cygwin. My conclusion >>> was not what i have expected. Most of the time cygwin runtime has a good >>> speed. This is not so slow in fact. I think most of the slowness you can >>> see is because you are working in a MSDOS/emulated X terminal which >>> seems slow (but is not, this is just a question of refresh rate). >>> Seriously, cygwin is not that bad. I would still not recommend using it >>> for various other reasons. >> >> Indeed, runtime has no reason to be affected as long as it's not using >> external libraries, typically -lws2_32, winsock2). The point is really >> startup. >> As for terminal slowness, my computer boots in 16 seconds under linux. >> I recompiled my kernel yesterday and activated PRINTK_TIME/Show timing >> information on printks, it gives you the time a kernel message was >> emitted, related to startup. At the end of the boot, the kernel was >> giving times 3 seconds better than an independent chronometer. There >> had been enough things to write on the console for message to take 3 >> seconds to be displayed. Displaying on a terminal is slooow >> everywhere, not just windows. >> > > In fact, I cannot really prove what I say, but MSDOS shell windows seems > to refresh less frequently, giving you a strange feeling that something > is blocked. It is not a question of being slow but SEEMING to be slow. > I mean you spend the same amount of time but you get results sooner in > linux console than in MSDOS. At the end of the process, the chronometer > is at the same time, but with MSDOS you have the feeling to have spend > more time. > > I think that the refresh rate of MSDOS is over 125 ms (ergonomic limit > time to feel that something is not stalled).
Under cygwin, it would take from 1 to 2 seconds to get one line further in a configure script, so definitely not this > >> Also, I don't think cygwin is bad. I just think it is not the >> appropriate answer for most of us. IMHO msys/mingw is a better >> *approach*, however their shell implementation is bastard. They >> decided to support both forward and backward slashes for instance, >> this has the awful consequence of giving you "not found" errors when >> using /c/gnu/msys/home/Adrien/icu\\source (personal experience). That >> is however something at the msys level, not the mingw one. >> > > +10 points, "/" and "\\" (and " " for all OS) in pathname is a big pain. > Spend many hours debugging scripts. > > Another big problem: "\n" in cygwin. For example if you use > ocamlfind ocamlc -pp "camlp4 `ocamlfind query -a-format sexplib`" > You are in trouble, because "\r" will pops up in the resulting command > line not being interpreted by the shell as space.... At some point I thought about making a new shell, with much more strictness. I'd prefer cross-compilation but if it's not possible, that would maybe be a good thing, even though it really scares me. --- Adrien Nader > > Regards, > Sylvain Le Gall > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
