Ralf Habacker wrote: >> > 3) The cygwin implementation of fork-and-exec doesn't jive well with >> > the VM size of xemacs. Supposedly a real vfork is in the works for >> > cygwin but I can't attest to its functionality.
> Can you explain this a little bit more ? I'm asking because in > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2001-q4/msg00276.html I have described > some problems with kde2 on cygwin relating performance and I'm very interested > in getting more informations how to fix these problems. In short, loading the > full kde2 desktop needs about 4 minutes and the reaction time for starting apps > are > 1 minute. This seems to be unusable. > My assumption are that these problems depends on application loading (vfork is > used on every app), file and socket io. > A regular kde2 app uses about 20-40 dll's, so a faster vfork would decrease the > loading time. :-) Well, this is the clarification that I received: > The VM comment is referring to the large footprint of XEmacs which means > that doing a fork requires copying an awful lot of data (and hence takes a > long time), most OS's do copy-on-write for vfork so the overhead is never > incurred. And of course, cgf chimed in on this thread, but I can't find his message in my mail archive, and (as mentioned elsewhere) the cygwin ml archive is missing his message as well, so I can't quote it here for you. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/