From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#18752: 24.3.94; Why is Cygwin Emacs 2x quicker than Windows Emacs? Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:42:48 +0300 Message-ID: <83wq7ydjc7.fsf__19588.504828471$1413611067$gmane$org@gnu.org> References: <86h9z2rb42.fsf@example.com> <83siim1z6h.fsf@gnu.org> <86iojimmjg.fsf@example.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1413611067 25525 80.91.229.3 (18 Oct 2014 05:44:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 05:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 18752@debbugs.gnu.org, cygwin@cygwin.com To: Fabrice Niessen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 18 07:44:17 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XfMoJ-0002wV-97 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 07:44:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35755 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfMoI-0000rZ-Rg for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:44:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37120) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfMoB-0000rR-Ed for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:44:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfMo6-0007hS-Ej for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:44:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56269) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfMo6-0007hM-CE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:44:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfMo6-0008Bu-18 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:44:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 05:44:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 18752 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 18752-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B18752.141361098931412 (code B ref 18752); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 05:44:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 18752) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Oct 2014 05:43:09 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47833 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfMnE-0008AY-EA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:43:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout28.012.net.il ([80.179.55.184]:46016) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfMnA-0008AO-Jn for 18752@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 01:43:05 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout28.012.net.il by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NDM00900JO4UM00@mtaout28.012.net.il> for 18752@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:41:13 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NDM00683L4P7B70@mtaout28.012.net.il>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 08:41:13 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <86iojimmjg.fsf@example.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:94705 > From: Fabrice Niessen > Cc: 18752@debbugs.gnu.org, cygwin , dmoncayo@gmail.com > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 23:08:51 +0200 > > > You also forgot to tell what compiler options were used for each > > build. E.g., if the Cygwin build is optimized, whereas the MinGW > > build is not, the twofold speedup is expected (I generally see > > a factor of 2.5 between an optimized and unoptimized build). > > I have no idea how Cygwin Emacs gets compiled, nor Windows Emacs (done > by Dani). Putting them in Cc. As Ken points out, the variable system-configuration-options is the way to tell. Given that the Cygwin build is optimized, it suffices to show that the MinGW one isn't, to explain the difference in speed.