> >I'm really seeing the non-optimized cygwin cp behaviour causing bad > >reputation, which could be easily patched and maybe even accepted > >upstream. Who knows. Eric what do think? Would it be worthful to think > >about?
I don't really want to maintain a Windows API patch, and doubt that it would be accepted upstream. Now if there were something more POSIX-y that we could do to speed things up, such as posix_fadvise, which cygwin could translate into whatever Windows API hooks that would improve the situation, then that would be the way to go. > > If this is what you want then you should look into a non-cygwin > solution. There are a couple of projects which provide GNU tools for > Windows without resorting to something like the Cygwin DLL. Agreed. My other big worry is that I have no control over whether using straight Windows API will violate other POSIX assumptions, thus making cp (and mv) noncompliant. I am not a fan of mixing cygwin and non-cygwin APIs when it can be helped. That said, if someone else comes up with a potential patch, I will certainly review it. But it is not my highest priority right now. -- Eric Blake -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
