Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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: <200312292346.hBTNkgqd018452@guild.plethora.net> From: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach) Reply-To: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach) cc: Cygwin List Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:34:56 CST." <200312292334.hBTNYuqd024130@guild.plethora.net> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:46:42 -0600 X-IsSubscribed: yes In message <200312292334 DOT hBTNYuqd024130 AT guild DOT plethora DOT net>, Peter Seebach writ es: >Can we just kill this now? Take out the "-j", leave the support for getopts >in the shell, and all the shell scripters will be happy. The configure >scripts will run at exactly the same speed, and I will happily join in >defending the decision to trim the job control and history features from the >shell to make a minimalist shell designed for scripting, leaving people the >option of using bash or pdksh if they want an interactive shell. I may be forced to retract this. Out of idle curiousity, I did timing comparisons between the stripped-down shell and the "bloated" /bin/sh on NetBSD. The bloated shell wins, by about 15%. I don't know why, but I suspect it has to do with configure using something which is a builtin in the bigger shell, and an external command in the smaller one. I find this ironic. -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/