Re: MinGW port usable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > I wonder what the difference is between NO_MMAP=Yes and NO_MMAP=
> > on Windows.
> Cygwin:
> 	real    0m0.812s
> and
> 	real    0m2.094s
> 
> IOW, the numbers are slightly worse (!) than with mmap().

Slightly?  That's double the time!
 
> MinGW does not even have mmap().

But Windows has something almost there.  I just read a flame war
thread about implementing mmap in libiberty for MinGW by stealing
source from Cygwin, and how the FSF might feel about someone's
dirty feet after playing rugby.  Yea... Google is good.  :)

-- 
Shawn.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]