[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects
From: |
Soren A |
Subject: |
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:46:33 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Xnews/L5 |
Andreas Buening <address@hidden> wrote around 14 Oct 2002
news:address@hidden:
> Even more, to my knowledge for systems like Cygwin, MinGW and EMX
> the configure time depends only on the number of fork() calls.
> I guess, it doesn't matter whether you have a shell script or a binary.
> If both have the same number of fork() calls they need the same time
> to run.
That might be, Andreas. Others have a lot more knowledge about what
makes things slow, than i do. I *can* tell anyone that typically MinGW
procedures run at least 100% faster (as a subjective estimate) than
Cygwin ones. (Neveretheless let me be clear that I am not downing Cygwin
or b*tching about it).
But I know in a general theoretical sense that starting new processes on
Windows is expensive, unavoidably and invariably. You are certainly right
about that.
This would mean that for such a proposed new "./configure" system as we are
discussing here to be successful on 'doze platforms, it would have to keep
the number of forks (new spawned sub-processes) to a bare minimum. That
would require discipline on the part of those that write such a thing with
their minds primarily focused on its utility as a tool for Linux, to resist
the urge to use the easy fork() available with wild abandon. Thus we have
the same problem we are trying to run away from, presently: that writing
and maintaining the "./configure" setup is extra-laborious because so many
things need to be borne in mind: other people's platform limitations -- not
just our own preferred platform's characteristics.
Just a few more thoughts...
Soren A
--
Just say NO to YAHAAPs!
(http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=
Xns92991EB1F396ngrATT586ID%40204.127.36.1)
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, (continued)
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Pavel Roskin, 2002/10/13
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Lord, 2002/10/13
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Bruce Korb, 2002/10/13
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Glenn McGrath, 2002/10/13
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Soren A, 2002/10/15
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Dean Povey, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Glenn McGrath, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Bruce Korb, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Andreas Buening, 2002/10/14
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects,
Soren A <=
- Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Bernd Jendrissek, 2002/10/15
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Peter Eisentraut, 2002/10/15
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Peter Eisentraut, 2002/10/18
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Tom Lord, 2002/10/18
Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects, Richard Stallman, 2002/10/21