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 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Shankar Unni Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:57:36 -0800 Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <200312292048 DOT hBTKm6qd026306 AT guild DOT plethora DOT net> <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20031229161810 DOT 03bbd940 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (20031223) In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20031229161810.03bbd940@127.0.0.1> Larry Hall wrote: > Performance of configure scripts was abysmal when /bin/sh == /bin/bash. Umm, ash+getopts != bash. I think this is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Certainly ash (in any form) would be much faster than bash - no argument there, and I don't think anyone's advocating linking sh to bash again. I guess the big question now is: how would Peter "prove" to anyone's liking that ash+getopts ~= ash-getopts in performance (and nowhere near "bash")? Is there some acceptance criterion that anyone's willing to spell out? PTC is fine, but it's hard to evaluate a patch unless an objective (or even subjective) performance criterion is spelled out.. -- 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/