Re: MinGW port usable

Hi,

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

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

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