X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:24:58 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Similar Bash 3.1.18 CR/LF Problem Message-ID: <20061004232458.GB14493@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20061004114807 DOT GE30609 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0F7B137A AT PAUMAILU03 DOT ags DOT agere DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0F7B137A@PAUMAILU03.ags.agere.com> 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 Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:06:19PM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> The dilemma here is that I read other mailing lists besides >> cygwin where people are trying to use Cygwin but are close >> to giving up because it is so slow. So, making bash faster >> for people who are using it correctly is very desirable. > >Which is why we need to get the patch in upstream. If you >can't make it faster, you can at least make what you're >comparing against slower. :-) > >Seriously, I'd have a hard time believing that supporting >endings would noticably impact performance if it were done as part of >upstream BASH. You haven't been paying attention, it seems. We've already been over this ground. The performance impact for turning on bash's automatic CRLF handling is profound. That's why we're here. 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/