From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8777BBAF for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:23:26 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwCALkd9EhQW+UCgWdsb2JhbACTYAEBFiIEqgaBbA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,409,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="30321419" Received: from discorde.inria.fr ([192.93.2.38]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2008 13:23:26 +0200 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by discorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m9EBNOFA028561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:23:25 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwCALkd9EhQW+UCgWdsb2JhbACTYAEBFiIEqgaBbA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,409,1220220000"; d="scan'208";a="30321416" Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) ([80.91.229.2]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 14 Oct 2008 13:23:25 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Kphzl-0006RG-5M for caml-list@inria.fr; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:23:21 +0000 Received: from ks300734.kimsufi.com ([91.121.65.225]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:23:21 +0000 Received: from sylvain by ks300734.kimsufi.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:23:21 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: caml-list@inria.fr From: Sylvain Le Gall Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Road to native windows OCaml... Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:23:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <200810131935.53365.kuba@mareimbrium.org> <548B4D09-6EFF-4805-83E2-D1F413706EE5@erratique.ch> <666572260810140241p5d7b8ee2ofafebec229e9bce2@mail.gmail.com> <666572260810140407w121d5bafm43993737df5e2c0c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ks300734.kimsufi.com User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-102 (Linux) Sender: news X-Miltered: at discorde with ID 48F4812C.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; le-gall:01 ocaml:01 le-gall:01 buenzli:01 cygwin:01 cygwin:01 runtime:01 runtime:01 recompiled:01 mingw:01 mingw:01 pathname:01 ocamlfind:01 ocamlc:01 -pp:01 On 14-10-2008, Adrien wrote: > 2008/10/14, Sylvain Le Gall : >> On 14-10-2008, Adrien wrote: >>> 2008/10/14, Daniel Bünzli : >>>> >>>> Le 14 oct. 08 à 09:59, David Allsopp a écrit : >>>> >> Another information, I have various benchmark on cygwin. My conclusion >> was not what i have expected. Most of the time cygwin runtime has a good >> speed. This is not so slow in fact. I think most of the slowness you can >> see is because you are working in a MSDOS/emulated X terminal which >> seems slow (but is not, this is just a question of refresh rate). >> Seriously, cygwin is not that bad. I would still not recommend using it >> for various other reasons. > > Indeed, runtime has no reason to be affected as long as it's not using > external libraries, typically -lws2_32, winsock2). The point is really > startup. > As for terminal slowness, my computer boots in 16 seconds under linux. > I recompiled my kernel yesterday and activated PRINTK_TIME/Show timing > information on printks, it gives you the time a kernel message was > emitted, related to startup. At the end of the boot, the kernel was > giving times 3 seconds better than an independent chronometer. There > had been enough things to write on the console for message to take 3 > seconds to be displayed. Displaying on a terminal is slooow > everywhere, not just windows. > In fact, I cannot really prove what I say, but MSDOS shell windows seems to refresh less frequently, giving you a strange feeling that something is blocked. It is not a question of being slow but SEEMING to be slow. I mean you spend the same amount of time but you get results sooner in linux console than in MSDOS. At the end of the process, the chronometer is at the same time, but with MSDOS you have the feeling to have spend more time. I think that the refresh rate of MSDOS is over 125 ms (ergonomic limit time to feel that something is not stalled). > Also, I don't think cygwin is bad. I just think it is not the > appropriate answer for most of us. IMHO msys/mingw is a better > *approach*, however their shell implementation is bastard. They > decided to support both forward and backward slashes for instance, > this has the awful consequence of giving you "not found" errors when > using /c/gnu/msys/home/Adrien/icu\\source (personal experience). That > is however something at the msys level, not the mingw one. > +10 points, "/" and "\\" (and " " for all OS) in pathname is a big pain. Spend many hours debugging scripts. Another big problem: "\n" in cygwin. For example if you use ocamlfind ocamlc -pp "camlp4 `ocamlfind query -a-format sexplib`" You are in trouble, because "\r" will pops up in the resulting command line not being interpreted by the shell as space.... Regards, Sylvain Le Gall