Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Shankar Unni <shankarunni AT netscape DOT net>
Subject:	Re: Question about ash and getopts
Date:	Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:57:36 -0800
Lines:	14
Message-ID:	<bt02b2$id8$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:34:06 EST." <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20031229152216 DOT 03bb6430 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> <200312292048 DOT hBTKm6qd026306 AT guild DOT plethora DOT net> <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20031229161810 DOT 03bbd940 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org
User-Agent:	Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (20031223)
In-Reply-To:	<6.0.1.1.0.20031229161810.03bbd940@127.0.0.1>

Larry Hall wrote:

> Performance of configure scripts was abysmal when /bin/sh == /bin/bash.

Umm, ash+getopts != bash. I think this is an apples-and-oranges 
comparison. Certainly ash (in any form) would be much faster than bash - 
no argument there, and I don't think anyone's advocating linking sh to 
bash again.

I guess the big question now is: how would Peter "prove" to anyone's 
liking that ash+getopts ~= ash-getopts in performance (and nowhere near 
"bash")?  Is there some acceptance criterion that anyone's willing to 
spell out? PTC is fine, but it's hard to evaluate a patch unless an 
objective (or even subjective) performance criterion is spelled out..


--
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/

- Raw text -