Re: The GetCommandLine/WinMain "problem"

[Christopher Faylor <me at cgf dot cx>]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:50:51PM -0400, Larry Hall wrote:
>I think this is reasonable, at least to try.  As long as there is a simple,
>transparent step of "just relink and things will work as expected again",
>then I don't see a problem.  I would, however, recommend keeping the
>alternative patch waiting in the wings in case all hell breaks loose and
>the pain experienced on the Cygwin lists start to outweigh the benefits.
>If that point is reached, we could revert the behavior and stall the change
>until Cygwin 2.0.  If this situation arises, there's no reason Cygwin 2.0
>can't be a "sooner" rather than "later" thing either.  It might be a good
>argument to start planning some serious house-cleaning. :-)  But if we can
>avoid all the other issues that 2.0 would bring and just introduce this
>performance improvement, so much the better.  Thinking along that line, do
>we know what benefits we get from this change, such as improved performance?
>Can it be quantified?

I don't really know, Larry.  I probably slowed Cygwin down some by
having it look to see if a to-be-spawned executable is using
cygwin1.dll.  So, Corinna's change may just get back a fraction from
that change.

Corinna mentioned 2.0, too, but that really runs counter to what I was
thinking.  I'm trying to improve things for the normal cygwin user while
impacting a minority of "abnormal" users.  Moving to Cygwin 2.0 would,
of course, mean impacting everyone severely.  And, possibly it would impact
Corinna and me most of all.  I am not ready for that quite yet.

cgf