Repeat after me: don't open old threads.
oops ...
didn't know that rule
after which time is a thread an old thread?
However I'll let you off this once, because you are using a newsreader and
I've made the same mistake before.
Thx
If you think copy on write is faster, then feel free to do
A test program and statistics are shown below which clearly
show Cygwin's
fork implementation in the lead.
how much memory did your programs allocate prior to fork()ing?
copy-on-write might only apply to applications with high memory-usage.
another thing i didn't understand was, why you
Repeat after me: don't open old threads.
However I'll let you off this once, because you are using a newsreader and
I've made the same mistake before.
BTW: As long as it's open, I did try to compile and link with the libfork.a
you(?) sent me, to try it on XP, and got nowhere. I couldn't link
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 03:06:55AM +0100, Chris January wrote:
This is mainly a question aimed at Christopher Faylor, but maybe someone
else knows the answer.
My question is, with regard to Chris's post Re: copy-on-write (oh well)
cgf wrote:
I assume that one possible reason is that the copy-on-write fork may be
somehow bypassing normal in-memory sharing of text segments but I never
knew for sure.
Have either of you tried this comparison on XP, to see if it's any different
there? I'm running XP here, if Chris J.
-Original Message-
From: Chris January [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 12:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Copy-on-write fork
This is mainly a question aimed at Christopher Faylor, but
maybe someone else knows the answer. My question is, with
6 matches
Mail list logo
