X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 01:35:47 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated [experimental]: bash-3.1-7 Message-ID: <20060909053547.GA13152@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <00e801c6d3c7$bce450f0$020aa8c0 AT DFW5RB41> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00e801c6d3c7$bce450f0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 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 On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 11:23:44PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: >> 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 This version removes several outdated #defines that were once 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. http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-09/msg00035.html cgf -- 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/