Re: complains about the cygwin/gcc binaries

[marco atzeri <marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com>]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Angelo Graziosi  wrote:
> Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>
>> In the gcc-3 era the C++ timing performance were really poor, gcc-4
>> solved a lot such problem.
>> I guess the situation is improved in the meantime but of course cygwin
>> is slower than an equivalent
>> native build as he try to replicate the UNIX/Posix enviroment in an
>> unfriendly MS-Windows word.
>>
>> My experience porting octave says that gcc-4 is much better but I have
>> no idea of ROOT needs.
>
> I follow the development of ROOT under Cygwin since ROOT-3, and there wasn't
> really big problems: each time, when prompted, they was always fixed by ROOT
> people.
>
> The performances of ROOT under Cygwin are good enough (at least with by
> builds with gcc4 compilers). Obviously Cygwin isn't a native GNU/Linux and
> often the performances are influenced by AV security applications..
>
> Ciao,
> Angelo.

the last is true but AntiVirus affect negatively also native
MS-Windows application :-((
so it is not a cygwin problem.

Marco

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/