Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:02:15 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility
Message-ID: <20061019020215.GA21772@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <1160655422743 DOT antti DOT nospam DOT 1605718 DOT wGO_WJ9D1NlId3tB-z6Qig AT luukku DOT com> <20061012123406 DOT GA30908 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <452EA386 DOT 9010201 AT qualcomm DOT com> <20061012212011 DOT GA8535 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <452EFDDB DOT 1010301 AT qualcomm DOT com> <452F8719 DOT 9060300 AT cygwin DOT com> <4536BC88 DOT 3030003 AT qualcomm DOT com> <4536C922 DOT 4090807 AT qualcomm DOT com> <4536CECC DOT F126C397 AT dessent DOT net> <4536D9C8 DOT 7050304 AT cygwin DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4536D9C8.7050304@cygwin.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 09:50:00PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>Brian Dessent wrote:
>>Rob Walker wrote:
>>
>>>I looked into my scripts a little harder, have better results, some new
>>>conclusions:
>>
>>I think you are missing the point somewhat.  The thing you need to
>>benchmark against is the older bash version before the 'igncr' option
>>even existed, which read every script one byte at a time regardless of
>>mount type or line endings.  With typical 'configure' scripts easily
>>exceeding 200 kB (and some more than 2.5 MB!), this resulted in massive
>>overhead.  *That* was the performance hit that motivated this whole
>>ordeal in the first place.
>>
>>I understand you are advocating for igncr being set by default, but I
>>got the impression that everyone agreed that this would probably be a
>>good idea, and that Eric would probably make this the default
>>eventually.
>
>
>Indeed.  If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that every possible
>angle of CRLF handling has been covered in one thread or another in the
>last month or so.  Let's leave this all in Eric's capable hands.  I'm
>confident that whatever he comes up with will be better than where we
>started and a vast improvement overall for everyone.  From what I've seen
>so far, and what Rob's results would confirm, is that the changes made
>already are a giant leap forward.  Obviously if there turns out to be a
>flaw in the delivered result, I am also very confident that someone on
>this list will find it and report it.  Until then, we can all bask in
>the bliss of an issue well-covered and the lack of a need for further
>email on the subject. :-)

I agree.  We certainly don't need any more email on the subject.  More
email would be overkill.

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/