On Wed, June 24, 2009 21:53, Edward Lam wrote: > PS. So I went ahead and repeated the tr test on an older (Intel Core 2 > Quad 2.66 GHz) machine with cygwin 1.5 on Windows *32-bit*:
Sorry, I got the system specs wrong. It's actually just an Intel Core 2 6600 2.40 GHz machine. > > $ time -p for ((i=1; i<100; i++)); do var=$(echo $i | tr [a-z] [A-Z]); > done > real 2.64 > user 6.56 > sys 1.85 > > We're talking about a difference between an Intel processor ONE GENERATION > OLDER, on an older version of cygwin, yet being a few times FASTER. > > On Wed, June 24, 2009 21:49, Edward Lam wrote: >> On Wed, June 24, 2009 17:29, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >>> Sure, we all know that Cygwin provides Linux emulation and suffers some >>> overhead for it. But timings from an individual machine can be >>> misleading. >>> Running this through multiple times for both Mingw and Cygwin 1.7 on my >>> similarly equipped machine, I see Cygwin is somewhere between 1.7 and >>> 2.25 >>> times slower. Whether yours or my result is more typical, I can't say. >>> But as you noted, neither data set provides much justification for the >>> results reported. >> >> Larry, >> >> Are you on 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows? I've noted on this mailing >> list earlier that there are large speed differences between the two. I >> wonder which platform Gene is on. The tr test results are consistent on >> Windows 64-bit for me. >> >> I don't quite understand what MINGW32 is doing that makes it ~2 times >> faster than cygwin. >> >> -Edward >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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
