Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries

[Angelo Graziosi <angelo dot graziosi at alice dot it>]

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/