Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: Shankar Unni <shankarunni@netscape.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." <6.0.1.1.0.20031229152216.03bb6430@127.0.0.1> <200312292048.hBTKm6qd026306@guild.plethora.net> <6.0.1.1.0.20031229161810.03bbd940@127.0.0.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.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/