Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Angelo Graziosi wrote: > Marco Atzeri wrote: >> >> In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4 >> solved a lot such problem. >> I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin >> is slower than an equivalent >> native build as he try to replicate the UNIX/Posix enviroment in an >> unfriendly MS-Windows word. >> >> My experience porting octave says that gcc-4 is much better but I have >> no idea of ROOT needs. > > I follow the development of ROOT under Cygwin since ROOT-3, and there wasn't > really big problems: each time, when prompted, they was always fixed by ROOT > people. > > The performances of ROOT under Cygwin are good enough (at least with by > builds with gcc4 compilers). Obviously Cygwin isn't a native GNU/Linux and > often the performances are influenced by AV security applications.. > > Ciao, > Angelo. the last is true but AntiVirus affect negatively also native MS-Windows application :-(( so it is not a cygwin problem. Marco -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
Marco Atzeri wrote: In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4 solved a lot such problem. I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin is slower than an equivalent native build as he try to replicate the UNIX/Posix enviroment in an unfriendly MS-Windows word. My experience porting octave says that gcc-4 is much better but I have no idea of ROOT needs. I follow the development of ROOT under Cygwin since ROOT-3, and there wasn't really big problems: each time, when prompted, they was always fixed by ROOT people. The performances of ROOT under Cygwin are good enough (at least with by builds with gcc4 compilers). Obviously Cygwin isn't a native GNU/Linux and often the performances are influenced by AV security applications.. Ciao, Angelo. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:36 PM, wrote: > In the ROOT downloading website: > http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-versio > n-528 > It says: > "Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very poor; we > only pro > vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recommend to use the > version above compiled with VC++. The ROOT team will not answer any messages > related to problems with the win32gcc version" > > What's the reason of the poor performance. Is there any way to improve that? > > Thanks > --Wei In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4 solved a lot such problem. I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin is slower than an equivalent native build as he try to replicate the UNIX/Posix enviroment in an unfriendly MS-Windows word. My experience porting octave says that gcc-4 is much better but I have no idea of ROOT needs. Regards Marco -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
On 1/27/2011 2:36 PM, wxie wrote: In the ROOT downloading website: http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-version-528 It says: "Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very poor; we only pro vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recommend to use the version above compiled with VC++. The ROOT team will not answer any messages related to problems with the win32gcc version" What's the reason of the poor performance. Is there any way to improve that? If you're posting something about Cygwin's gcc or Cygwin in general, the better list is cygwin at cygwin dot com. As for the statement above, I think you're better off asking the folks that are responsible for making the statement. There's obviously some overhead to the emulated environment that Cygwin provides but I can't say whether the statement is a general reference to this issue or to something more specific. -- Larry _ A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries
In the ROOT downloading website: http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/production-versio n-528 It says: "Note that the performance of cygwin/gcc binaries is currently very poor; we only pro vide this build as an unsupported toy. We strongly recommend to use the version above compiled with VC++. The ROOT team will not answer any messages related to problems with the win32gcc version" What's the reason of the poor performance. Is there any way to improve that? Thanks --Wei -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
