Il 5/20/2013 3:28 AM, Alan W. Irwin ha scritto:
On 2013-05-19 21:06-0000 David Cole wrote:


With regard to your frustration with Cygwin speed, I must say I have
similar frustrations with how fast commands execute under bash.exe.
That issue appears to be
entirely due to startup latency.  For example, here is a comparison of
"cmake --version" results on Linux versus running that same command
under bash.exe on Wine.

software@raven> time cmake --version
cmake version 2.8.10.2

real    0m0.008s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.004s

bash.exe-3.1$ time cmake --version
cmake version 2.8.10.2

real    0m0.197s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.040s

These results were determined with a CMake version I built myself on
Linux and a downloaded Windows binary (built by Kitware with Microsoft
proprietary compilers) on MinGW/MSYS/Wine, but in the past I have also
gotten similar bad results for a CMake version that I built myself on
MinGW/MSYS/Wine, and there are similar bad startup latency results
(0.2 seconds just to execute the --version option for the command
which is a factor of ~25 slower than the corresponding Linux result)
for all other heavily used build commands such as gcc and make.  So
this is a general bash.exe issue and not a cmake issue, and it a real
killer of build speeds since cmake and gcc are often invoked during
the build process (e.g., to provide progress reports, to make a quick
build test, or to actually make a build containing many separate small
source files ) in a way that is completely dominated by the bad
startup latency numbers above.

At this point I don't know whether this startup latency issue is due
to an issue with bash.exe on Wine or a more general bash.exe issue on
Windows, and if anybody hear could do such a simple "time cmake
--version" test for a MSYS/bash.exe environment on Microsoft Windows
to see whether the result is nearer 0.200 seconds or 25 times faster
that might confirm or eliminate Wine as the culprit.

the slowness at startup on cywin is mainly due the fork
implementation
http://cygwin.com/faq/faq-nochunks.html#faq.api.fork

unfortunately windows makes a real fork implementation very inefficient.



Alan
__________________________
Alan W. Irwin

Marco

--

Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at 
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: 
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake

Reply via email to