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: <3FF3F7C8.6BCC6BAE@dessent.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:34:48 -0800
From: Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
Organization: My own little world...
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
References: <200401011005 DOT i01A5sqd017685 AT guild DOT plethora DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.linuxsv3.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - cygwin.com
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - dessent.net
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Peter Seebach wrote:

> >Or perhaps at the time the change was made fork/vfork was not nearly as
> >optimized as it is now.
> 
> That wouldn't give ash any special advantages over bash; indeed, it would
> seem to favor shells with *more* builtins.

It could make a huge difference if bash used fork() while ash used
spawn(), or something like that.  I don't know all the details here but
I know that process creation is terribly expensive under Windows and
there are multiple ways of achieving the same thing.

Brian

--
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/