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
Reply-To: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20031229150250.03bb6d28@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: 
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:12:23 -0500
To: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach), cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
In-Reply-To: <200312291954.hBTJsZqd000543@guild.plethora.net>
References: <Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:37:52 EST." <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0312291434200 DOT 18706 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu> <200312291954 DOT hBTJsZqd000543 AT guild DOT plethora DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 02:54 PM 12/29/2003, Peter Seebach you wrote:
>In message <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0312291434200 DOT 18706 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>, Igor Pechtcha
>nski writes:
>>I'm sure this discussion is in the archives somewhere.
>
>A first run of casual searching hasn't turned it up.
>
>However, since I happen to have an unmunged ash source around, I removed
>getopts from it.
>
># Without getopts
>$ ls -l obj/sh
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 seebs  wheel  116024 Dec 29 12:50 obj/sh
># with getopts
>$ ls -l obj/sh
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 seebs  wheel  116440 Dec 29 12:51 obj/sh
>
>416 bytes?
>
>Is this some kind of practical joke?  The one thing I saw in the archive
>said that removing getopts saved 13k of space.
>
>To remove getopts, I removed:
>    * getoptscmd
>    * The reference to getoptscmd in builtin.def
>    * getopts
>    * getoptsreset
>
>The entirety of options.c only has about 3k of code in it at all.
>
>416 *bytes*?
>
>Admittedly, I did this compile on NetBSD, but the code in question is 100%
>portable, and the same everywhere.  It sounds to me like someone trimmed a
>lot of things, without any attention at all to how large the individual things
>were.
>
>I don't think anyone can convince me that a 416-byte difference in code, or
>even twice that, is big enough to justify thumbing one's nose at POSIX.


OK, sounds to me like you've convinced yourself that ash should contain 
getopts.  Does that mean that you no longer have a need to keep this thread 
going?  I'm not sure I see the discussion providing any useful benefit beyond
you becoming more comfortable with your original position.  If I'm wrong,
please show us where you're headed.  If not and your main goal was to just 
point out that ash doesn't have getopts, then let's end the thread.  There's 
little point to covering the same ground on this topic again. 


--
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/