Nice-to-have fix for autogen.sh

[Vitali Lovich]

On Feb 1, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> <segher at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>>>>> Except for the fact that configure is really slow, I'd agree with you.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It doesn't take more than ten seconds on a really slow machine though,
>>>> so it is almost bearable...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Actually, I'm well placed to know that configure is an order of magnitude
>>> slower (I'm not kidding) if you're using MinGW or cygwin on Windows.
>> 
>> 
>> On OSX it is ten times slower than on Linux already, but yes I remember
>> builds on cygwin being ten times slower than on Linux (on Linux it was
>> dominated by compiler time, on cygwin just by process startup).
>> 
>> I thought it would have improved a bit by now, and I thought mingw would
>> be better.  I also thought the generally much faster hardware we have
>> these days would have made it all sort-of a non-issue.  "Almost bearable".
>> 
> 
> Speed-wise, Linux is always the fastest, OS X is not that bad in my
> experiences -- slightly slower than Linux for my 2011 Mac Mini, but I
> believe it is mainly because that I have not upgraded the RAM
> from 2GB to 4GB. OS X Lion is 64bit so it really needs the RAM.
> 
> MinGW/MSys is really much better than Cygwin and I feel it is
> "almost bearable". Cygwin is still hopelessly slow no matter how
> fast is your machine. But for libusb/libusbx, it is still bearable
> since it is small.
mingw/msys === cygwin for the tools, so I'd be surprised that it's actually faster.  Fork is just slow & they all have the same slow implementation.  Now maybe some file i/o might be faster than mingw since it might not follow POSIX semantics, so it might be marginally faster.