X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
From:	"Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated [experimental]: bash-3.1-7
Date:	Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:23:44 -0500
Message-ID:	<00e801c6d3c7$bce450f0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To:	<announce.45023251.3060809@byu.net>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

> From: Eric Blake
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:18 PM
> Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated [experimental]: bash-3.1-7
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> A new release of bash, 3.1-7, is available for experimental use.
> 
> NOTICE:
> =======
> This version removes several outdated #defines that were once 
> necessary in older versions of cygwin, but which made bash on 
> cygwin different and slower than bash on Linux.  [snip, the 
> line-ending fiasco that shall forever plague computer science]

How much slower?  While I'm all for saving a cycle here and there (q.v. the
1% make improvement ;-)), I have a hard time believing that ignoring the
occaisional "\r" is even a blip on bash's radar compared with fork()ing et
al.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle


--
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 -