X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" To: Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated [experimental]: bash-3.1-7 Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:23:44 -0500 Message-ID: <00e801c6d3c7$bce450f0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 > From: Eric Blake > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:18 PM > Subject: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated [experimental]: bash-3.1-7 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > A new release of bash, 3.1-7, is available for experimental use. > > NOTICE: > ======= > This version removes several outdated #defines that were once > necessary in older versions of cygwin, but which made bash on > cygwin different and slower than bash on Linux. [snip, the > line-ending fiasco that shall forever plague computer science] How much slower? While I'm all for saving a cycle here and there (q.v. the 1% make improvement ;-)), I have a hard time believing that ignoring the occaisional "\r" is even a blip on bash's radar compared with fork()ing et al. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- 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/