Subject: Re: MinGW port usable

From: "Shawn O. Pearce" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:28:35 -0500

Johannes Schindelin <[email-masked]> 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!
 
> MinGW does not even have mmap().

But Windows has something almost there.  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.  :)

-- 
Shawn.