Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:21:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:55:50PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
> >> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >>I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only
> >> >>people capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand
> >> >>Nt* calls.  That is a subset of the already small number of people who
> >> >>understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin.
> >> >
> >> >You mean, like 2?  (Err, 3.  I mean, 4, or maybe 5..)
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know..
> >>
> >> Just take a look at the number of people who have contributed to
> >> cygwin-patches in the last year or so.  I wouldn't want to scare away
> >> the people who contribute trivial patches because they can't find any
> >> documentation on "NtCreateFile".
> >>
> >> I suppose *we* could produce documentation on the Nt* functions but
> >> that's also a support burden.
> >
> >If the Cygwin team had to write 9x wrappers for the Nt* functions, some
> >documentation would have to be part of the wrappers, wouldn't it?
> 
> The theory is that Nt knowledgeable pepole could maintain a backend Nt*
> layer and everyone else could write to the standard Win32 API vs.
> exposing the Nt layer to everyone and requiring that people figure out
> the unfamiliar Nt* arguments if/when they want to make changes.
> 
> But, Corinna and I haven't finished discussing how this would work yet
> so there are no guarantees how or if this will happen.

Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main list?