Re: Cygwin Performance and stat()

["Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>]

On 6/4/2010 2:20 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > "But providing a variant of stat() along the lines of what you propose
> > above is not practical for all the reasons already stated."
> This is not something that I said.  That was actually Larry Hall.

Heh.  Who needs him anyway!

Just to clarify, this comment was in response to Chris Wingerts' assertion
(<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-06/msg00033.html>) that it would be
worthwhile to provide some kind of switch to selectively disable the
expensive parts of stat().  And my point was that this had already been
discounted as a transparent way of addressing the performance problem
because it would still be up to the user or application to determine when
to make this trade-off (<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-05/msg00751.html>).
This is the same conclusion Chris Wingert has now come to as well and stated
in <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-06/msg00121.html>:

  All that being said, I think the best solution is not to optimize the dll
  stat(), but to do it at the executable level.  I see that Cygwin already
  has some level of patches at this level, it shouldn't be too difficult to
  support.

So we're all back on the same page now. :-)

--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
> > A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> > > Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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