Re: MinGW port usable

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 30, 2007, 16:49 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0701301746310.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070130162835.GD25950@spearce.org>

Hi,

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> 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!

Nope. What I meant is this: rev-list takes 0.8s without NO_MMAP, while it takes 0.75s with NO_MMAP, and similarly log takes 2.09s without NO_MMAP, while it takes 2.065 with NO_MMAP.

> > MinGW does not even have mmap().
> 
> But Windows has something almost there.

Yeah, CreateFile(). Very intuitive name.

>  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.  :)

Well, I had _horrible_ results in the last two weeks, slowly getting better.

Ciao, Dscho