Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
From: Larry Hall <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (Peter Seebach)
Cc: Cygwin List <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:18:23 -0500

At 06:46 PM 12/29/2003, Peter Seebach you wrote:
>In message <[email-masked]>, Peter Seebach writ
>es:
>>Can we just kill this now?  Take out the "-j", leave the support for getopts
>>in the shell, and all the shell scripters will be happy.  The configure
>>scripts will run at exactly the same speed, and I will happily join in
>>defending the decision to trim the job control and history features from the
>>shell to make a minimalist shell designed for scripting, leaving people the
>>option of using bash or pdksh if they want an interactive shell.
>
>I may be forced to retract this.
>
>Out of idle curiousity, I did timing comparisons between the stripped-down
>shell and the "bloated" /bin/sh on NetBSD.
>
>The bloated shell wins, by about 15%.  I don't know why, but I suspect it
>has to do with configure using something which is a builtin in the bigger
>shell, and an external command in the smaller one.
>
>I find this ironic.

Indeed.  That it would be.  Of course, like I said, lot's of things have
changed so the results today don't necessarily conflict with the findings
of yesteryear. 

Would you be willing to take this a step further and provide some 
configuration timings for some of the existing Cygwin packages?  Of
particular interest would be the larger packages, like binutils, gcc, and
gdb.  If these have favorable results, I think it could spark some 
interest.

--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     

--
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/