> > If you have such great insight into this type of thing, it won't take
> > you any time at all to duplicate. You've been complaining about this
> > and other cygwin performance issues for months. Why don't *you* do
> > something? I figured fork/exec/signals out from scratch. Certainly the
>
> Noone has explained, however, *why* the copy-on-write
> implementation was
> slower. Perhaps we have just been using the wrong tests. Does
> copy-on-write
> actually perform slower in "real world" tests? I don't know,
> because I only
While I never posted anything about it to the list. I tri
> If you have such great insight into this type of thing, it won't take
> you any time at all to duplicate. You've been complaining about this
> and other cygwin performance issues for months. Why don't *you* do
> something? I figured fork/exec/signals out from scratch. Certainly the
> brighte
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:33:23PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>I don't have the code anymore
>
>It's a pity, because everbody else has to start from scratch and
>couldn't take a deeper look and perhaps find the problem.
And the reason you wanted thousands of people to know this is...?
If you ha
> I don't have the code anymore
It's a pity, because everbody else has to start from scratch and couldn't take a
deeper look and perhaps find the problem.
Cheers
Ralf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Document
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:13:36AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 02:04:37PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Win32, the original state of the memory is treated as genuin state for
>>each process. Therefore child processes don't inherit the changes from
>>their parent
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 02:04:37PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Win32, the original state of the memory is treated as genuin state for
>each process. Therefore child processes don't inherit the changes from
>their parent processes but instead they begin with a fresh unchanged memory
>as it w
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:18:37AM -, Chris January wrote:
> > >>You misremember. I did hobble together a copy-on-write implementation
> > >>and found that it was actually slower. The generic win32
> > >>implementation of copy-on-write isn't powerful enough to completely
> > >>implement fork
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:04:01AM -, Chris January wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:58:50PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> >>>I can't prove a fact, that forking is the most anonying problem and
> >>>there were some initial work from some people (I remember Chris Faylor,
> >>>Chris Janua
> Just outta' curiosity, beyond the satisfaction of accomplishing it,; charset=us-ascii
> what would be gained?
I wasn't sure what would be gained or the various ramifications. wanted to get
hints about them, which this thread has done.
JeffH
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#u
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 12:04:01AM -, Chris January wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:58:50PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>>I can't prove a fact, that forking is the most anonying problem and
>>>there were some initial work from some people (I remember Chris Faylor,
>>>Chris January and oth
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:58:50PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> >I can't prove a fact, that forking is the most anonying problem
> and there were
> >some initial work from some people (I remember Chris Faylor,
> Chris January and
> >other) to identify the problems and to implement a new
> copy-
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:58:50PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>I can't prove a fact, that forking is the most anonying problem and there were
>some initial work from some people (I remember Chris Faylor, Chris January and
>other) to identify the problems and to implement a new copy-on-write seman
>> Having Mozilla itself running under Cygwin might not be useful
>> to a lot of people but the fixes that Cygwin might have to go
>> through to make this happen could pave the way for other X apps
>> that come later.
>
>like we have encountered while porting KDE to cygin/xfree.
>
I remember a very
Hi,
> Having Mozilla itself running under Cygwin might not be useful
> to a lot of people but the fixes that Cygwin might have to go
> through to make this happen could pave the way for other X apps
> that come later.
like we have encountered while porting KDE to cygin/xfree.
Cheers
Ralf
--
Hi
> First off, I have said it before and I'll say it again, Evolution from
> Ximian needs to be ported to Cygwin..
do you have heard from KMail or KOrganizer on cygwin/xfree.
Additional for the people who does not know that there is already an alternative
web browser: Konqueror from the kde-cyg
> Off the top of anyone's head, is there any major reason why it should not
> build?
>
Theres a few assembly bits that (from my experience attempting to port it to
alpha OSF/1 - with gcc 3.3) - I would be a bit worried about possibly -
although possibly a non issue since this is x86.
When I last t
>
> OK. Whatever those are.
>
> I'm guessing the MS in MSFT is Microsoft. I don't know what the FT
part is.
Stock symbol.. sorry.
> Building from Cygwin while targeting native Windows APIs would
> presumably be feasible using MinGW and / or "-mno-cygwin", but the
> result would presumably functi
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:59:19PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
2. Having a complex GUI app like Mozilla ported to Cygwin could
prove to be a stick in which to measure and compare the over
all efficiency and performance of Cygwin. If the "native"
Moz
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:59:19PM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>>2. Having a complex GUI app like Mozilla ported to Cygwin could
>>prove to be a stick in which to measure and compare the over
>>all efficiency and performance of Cygwin. If the "native"
>>Mozilla and th
Michael,
At 21:32 2003-03-26, Michael F. March wrote:
Jeff,
Just outta' curiosity, beyond the satisfaction of accomplishing it,
what would be gained?
well you could ssh into your windows machine and run mozilla remotely
from your xterminal ...
umm - okay so thats not much of a gain... but...
Fi
Jeff,
Just outta' curiosity, beyond the satisfaction of accomplishing it,
what would be gained?
well you could ssh into your windows machine and run mozilla remotely
from your xterminal ...
umm - okay so thats not much of a gain... but...
First off, I have said it before and I'll say it agai
Jeff,
Just outta' curiosity, beyond the satisfaction of accomplishing it, what
would be gained?
well you could ssh into your windows machine and run mozilla remotely from
your xterminal ...
umm - okay so thats not much of a gain... but...
Gareth
_
Jeff,
Just outta' curiosity, beyond the satisfaction of accomplishing it,
what would be gained?
Randall Schulz
At 17:24 2003-03-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just outta curiosity, has anyone built Mozilla 1.3 on cygwin?
thanks,
JeffH
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscrib
just outta curiosity, has anyone built Mozilla 1.3 on cygwin?
thanks,
JeffH
--
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/
25 matches
Mail list logo
