X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.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
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <announce.45023251.3060809@byu.net>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.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 This version removes several outdated #defines that were once 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/