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: <6.0.1.1.0.20031229191157.03bc6bd0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: 
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:18:23 -0500
To: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach)
From: Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
Cc: Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <200312292346.hBTNkgqd018452@guild.plethora.net>
References: <Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 17:34:56 CST." <200312292334 DOT hBTNYuqd024130 AT guild DOT plethora DOT net> <200312292346 DOT hBTNkgqd018452 AT guild DOT plethora DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 06:46 PM 12/29/2003, Peter Seebach you wrote:
>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.


Indeed.  That it would be.  Of course, like I said, lot's of things have
changed so the results today don't necessarily conflict with the findings
of yesteryear. 

Would you be willing to take this a step further and provide some 
configuration timings for some of the existing Cygwin packages?  Of
particular interest would be the larger packages, like binutils, gcc, and
gdb.  If these have favorable results, I think it could spark some 
interest.


--
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/