BTW,
BIG THANKS to all the people out there who already worked on a Cygwin
port of aforementioned packages. A grep -il cygwin on the
sources almost
always gave me a clue where to put my hands on for the Uwin port.
I guess this is one of the benefits of open source
development. Is Uwin
-Original Message-
From: Gary R. Van Sickle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 2:25 PM
#1 is basically the same as what you propose, though I'm not
sure I'm wild about the DLL idea; if everything's a builtin,
why not just statically link?
Several
-Original Message-
From: Gary R. Van Sickle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 2:32 PM
The thing is, a lot of work *has* been done to make fork as
efficient as possible. But there's a limit on how fast you
can create a new process and duplicate the
-Original Message-
From: Jesper Eskilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 4:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: possible project/research project
Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Why should this...:
rm //a/bunch/of/files
-Original Message-
From: Jesper Eskilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 11:27 PM
To: Robert Collins
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: possible project/research project
Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
make -j serialises
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 11:37:26PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jesper Eskilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 11:27 PM
To: Robert Collins
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: possible project/research project
Robert
Hi,
ksh93 is capable of keeping specially prepared executables as builtins.
Below is a copy of a mail I just got from the ATT research labs with
some comments on how to implement such things, and a link where you can
download ksh93 source and binaries (yes, Cygwin binaries).
Please follow the
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:39:10AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
ksh93 is capable of keeping specially prepared executables as builtins.
Below is a copy of a mail I just got from the ATT research labs with
some comments on how to implement such things, and a link where you can
download ksh93
What happened to supplying this for the cygwin distribution?
This is a release done by ATT, I have nothing to do with it.
I was waiting for their new source code to be released.
I only noticed this discussion on the list and forwarded it to them.
As you will have noticed, they compiled with
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 04:15:27AM +0100, Karsten Fleischer wrote:
What happened to supplying this for the cygwin distribution?
This is a release done by ATT, I have nothing to do with it.
Ah. I should have realized this. Ok.
I was waiting for their new source code to be released.
I only
Hi, Robert,
At 20:58 2002-03-21, Robert Collins wrote:
Re:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2002-03/msg01270.html
Right, I knew someone had to have thought along similar lines.
Umm... You rebuffed me when I pointed out it was not a new idea...
I'm gonna' be a convert, I can tell.
Until an
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:54 AM
Can we take this discussion somewhere else? I don't really
see how it relates to cygwin.
Sure. Given the apparent interest I was about to start looking for a
mailing
-Original Message-
From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:08 PM
To: Robert Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OT: possible project/research project -- ksh has
it all and is now available for cygwin
Hi, Robert
Robert,
Responses interposed below.
At 22:55 2002-03-19, Robert Collins wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:15 PM
Robert,
This idea isn't really new.
I don't recall claiming it as 'new' .. just
Randall,
responses inline..
-Original Message-
From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:34 PM
Well we still have that basic separate - bash's builtin's
for example.
If
it's not builtin, it needs a sub process.
That's not quite
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf
Of Gary R. Van Sickle
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2002 2:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OT: possible project/research project
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf
Rob,
More...
At 01:33 2002-03-20, Robert Collins wrote:
Randall,
responses inline..
-Original Message-
From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:34 PM
Well we still have that basic separate - bash's builtin's
for example.
If
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:04:44PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
In fact cgf has had a copy-on-write fork() for cygwin in alpha-quality
IIRC. I'd love to do some perf tests with that, and in fact on my todo
list is cygwin profiling. Time however, is the killer.
This keeps coming up. Maybe it
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:37:42AM -, Stephano Mariani wrote:
I would certainly agree with you about that, but the fact remains, a
lot of code, that cygwin exists to ease the porting of, uses it. If
the work was done on fork itself, it would help speed-up a lot more
that just configure (or
Randall..
-Original Message-
From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 2:47 AM
To: Robert Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OT: possible project/research project
No - sounds like you haven't been paying attention. In my very first
Sir,
We await your improved model for process control and the operating system
that implements it.
Senor,
Well wait no longer! These days, by gosh, we got everything from spawns to
execs to named synchronization objects to... dare I say it?... yes, even
threads! Gone are the days when
The issue at hand though, is twofold:
1) Minimise the changes needed to make a proxy for a program. I.e.
imagine if GCC and cc1plus.exe lived in-process. That would remove 2Mb
of disk IO for each compile. However the _only_ chance of getting such a
program proxied would be a minimalistic,
Gary,
You labelled yourself a patriot.
I quoted the label of a beer bottle. Samuel Adams to be precise.
I just pointed out some relevant wisdom.
Indeed. But not the relevant wisdom you thought you had.
If you perceive that to be namecalling, so be it. It's the sort of baseless
Gary R. Van Sickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# Why should this...:
rm //a/bunch/of/files/out/on/a/super/slow/server/*
# ...block this:
gcc hello.c
Obviously you're never going to be able to take advatage of all
non-dependencies, but as a wise man once told me, you can't win if you don't
Robert,
This idea isn't really new. I remember people talking about it back in the
System 6, System 7 and 32v days, when programs were starting to get bigger,
disks were still pretty slow, main store rather small and there was not yet
a copy-on-write fork(2) or a vfork(2). (Not to mention the
is not being targeted.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf
Of Randall R Schulz
Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2002 1:15 AM
To: Robert Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: possible project/research project
Robert,
This idea isn't really
-Original Message-
From: Randall R Schulz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:15 PM
Robert,
This idea isn't really new.
I don't recall claiming it as 'new' .. just an idea. :} (ok, pedant
mode off).
The problem is that you're creating a huge
-Original Message-
From: Stephano Mariani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:34 PM
To: 'Randall R Schulz'; Robert Collins; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OT: possible project/research project
I am no cygwin expert, or windows expert, but isn't
-Original Message-
From: Gary R. Van Sickle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:52 PM
I don't see it that the source of the problem is the
implementation of fork/vfork; the way I see it the very
*concept* of forking makes little to no sense. I've
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:46 AM
To: Cygwin
Subject: Re: OT: possible project/research project
Robert:
I'm not sure what I could do, but if you're willing to be
the project leader, and hand out
30 matches
Mail list logo
