On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Igor Peshansky wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> > > Will using shell wrappers noticably slow down calls to gcc? Or should
> > > we just start explicitly calling i686-pc-cygwin-gcc instead? (FWIW
> > > Gentoo does the equivalent of the latter.)
> >
> > I don't think speed itself will be a problem, unless the scripts are
> > really naive and involve lots of forks. However, as I noted before,
> > scripts cannot be invoked from non-Cygwin programs.
>
> ...but doesn't the script itself involve a fork? On a big project, with
> an extra fork for every source file, that can still add up.
Don't forget that invoking the gcc executable from make or the shell
involves a fork anyway. If gcc is 'exec'ed from the script, there will
only be the fork that invokes the shell, versus the fork that would have
invoked the executable.
I was referring to the scripts calling "grep", "sed", etc, to process the
options instead of using the bash builtin commands which don't involve
forks.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Freedom is just another word for "nothing left to lose"... -- Janis Joplin
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
