Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Shankar Unni <shankarunni AT netscape DOT net>
Subject:  Re: Making /bin/sh == bash.  Has the time come?
Date:  Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:35:05 -0700
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <d8d7r1$ih6$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:  <20050610150729 DOT GA13181 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Thunderbird/1.0.2 Mnenhy/0.7
In-Reply-To: <20050610150729.GA13181@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> So, in conversation with Corinna, I think that we're starting to lean
> towards making /bin/sh == bash sometime soon.

Excellent idea. And it even seems to handle the automatic switch to 
POSIX mode correctly when called "sh.exe".

Talking of which, how good is "pdksh" these days?

Using your "exec-expr-in-a-loop" microbenchmark (without the builtin), 
it seems to be nearly as fast as "ash" (within a few percent), and 
almost 1.5x as fast as bash (I got 20, 23 and 38 seconds for ash, pdksh 
and bash respectively). And for the "builtin" (using $((i+1))) loop, 
it's still nearly 4x as fast as bash (0.06 vs 0.23 seconds, or 0.25 vs 
1.1 seconds for 10000 iterations).

Is it stable enough (and well-enough maintained) to be considered for 
being "the shell"?

> We won't get rid of ash and will point to it when people
 > send the inevitable "Cygwin is slow!" message here.

Actually, has anyone done recent benchmarks comparing bash or pdksh vs 
ash on a reasonable-sized Configure script, or something like that 
(instead of toy benchmarks)?

My gut feeling is that we may not even need all the alternatives stuff, 
and can just tell folks who are *really anal* about this (or running 
especially feeble machine) to just run "SHELL=/bin/ash ash ./configure".


--
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/