Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <200312291920.hBTJKsqd013484@guild.plethora.net>
From: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach)
Reply-To: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach)
To: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:13:56 EST." <6.0.1.1.0.20031229140746.02c43c40@127.0.0.1>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:20:54 -0600
X-IsSubscribed: yes

In message <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20031229140746 DOT 02c43c40 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1>, Larry Hall writes:
>If you're curious, I suggest you run some timings on ash with and without 
>getopts enabled using a few configure scripts from some of Cygwin's 
>packages, large and small.  It was the slowness of configure scripts 
>that prompted the streamlining of Cygwin's ash.  If you can provide 
>data that suggests that there isn't a performance penalty for these
>scripts with getopts on, then a patch to turn it back on may be considered.

Did anyone perform an actual test showing that the getopts code was making
a difference, or was it just a general desire to trim everything in sight?

-s

--
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/