X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:19:57 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Similar Bash 3.1.18 CR/LF Problem
Message-ID: <20061005161957.GA4627@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20061004232458 DOT GB14493 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0F7B13ED 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: <4C89134832705D4D85A6CD2EBF38AE0F7B13ED@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: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:22:11AM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:06:19PM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote:
>>Seriously, I'd have a hard time believing that supporting
>><CR><LF> endings would noticably impact performance if it
>>were done as part of upstream BASH.
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>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.
>
>I guess WJM around here.  :-) But perhaps I've been paying more
>attention than you think.
>
>If a patch is incorporated into upstream BASH, it's not going to cause
>performance problems.  If it did, it would be rejected.  That's
>something for the upstream maintainers to decide.

I was specifically referring to your assertion that you would have a
hard time believing that CRLF handling would impact performance.  Since
bash already has CRLF handling that impacts performance severely I
don't see any basis in believing that just getting something included
upstream would be a guarantee that there would be no performance
problems.

But, Eric has weighed in on the subject and if he says that there isn't
much impact with his change, I certainly believe him.

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/