Message-ID: <4536CECC.F126C397@dessent.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:03:08 -0700
From: Brian Dessent <brian@dessent.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility
References: <1160655422743.antti.nospam.1605718.wGO_WJ9D1NlId3tB-z6Qig@luukku.com> <20061012123406.GA30908@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <452EA386.9010201@qualcomm.com> <20061012212011.GA8535@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <452EFDDB.1010301@qualcomm.com> <452F8719.9060300@cygwin.com> <4536BC88.3030003@qualcomm.com> <4536C922.4090807@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Rob Walker wrote:

> I looked into my scripts a little harder, have better results, some new
> conclusions:

I think you are missing the point somewhat.  The thing you need to
benchmark against is the older bash version before the 'igncr' option
even existed, which read every script one byte at a time regardless of
mount type or line endings.  With typical 'configure' scripts easily
exceeding 200 kB (and some more than 2.5 MB!), this resulted in massive
overhead.  *That* was the performance hit that motivated this whole
ordeal in the first place.

I understand you are advocating for igncr being set by default, but I
got the impression that everyone agreed that this would probably be a
good idea, and that Eric would probably make this the default
eventually.

Brian

--
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/