Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Reply-To: Cygwin List Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040101134614.037899e8@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 13:52:40 -0500 To: Shankar Unni , cygwin@cygwin.com From: Larry Hall Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts In-Reply-To: References: <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" At 09:57 PM 12/31/2003, Shankar Unni you wrote: >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. Nor was I. I was simply providing some history. >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.. I provided my suggestion, which Peter followed. It's the ash maintainer that has the final word on what, if anything, happens next and/or what the criteria should be. -- 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/