Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:05:14 -0400 From: Chris Faylor To: Geoffrey Noer Cc: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: Just say *no* to ash? Message-ID: <19990708170514.A3447@cygnus.com> References: <19990704002813 DOT A6462 AT cygnus DOT com> <19990708140018 DOT F17138 AT cygnus DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i In-Reply-To: <19990708140018.F17138@cygnus.com>; from Geoffrey Noer on Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 02:00:18PM -0700 On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 02:00:18PM -0700, Geoffrey Noer wrote: >On Sun, Jul 04, 1999, Chris Faylor wrote: >> I've just compiled bash with --enable-minimal-config which is supposed to >> produce a /bin/sh-like version of bash. It's about 2.2 times the size of >> ash when finished. >> >> While I like the thought of using a small, fast shell for configures I'm >> wondering if this is ever going to buy us as much as it loses in lack of >> compatibility with a "standard". And, we seem to be constantly fixing >> bugs in ash, as well. >> >> Does anyone have an opinion on whether ash should go? > >Hmmmm. Well, Cygwin has sped up a bit so perhaps the discrepency >isn't as noticable. When we changed to ash for configures, I think >the speed-up was well worth the additional maintenance of ash. That >may still be the case, dunno. I haven't compared them recently. Actually, after doing some tests, I withdraw my proposal. It's still *a lot* slower with bash, even when bash is "minimally configured". I have been testing the newest version of ash with some freshly applied changes that shrink its size and remove all non-/bin/sh isms. It seems to be working ok. cgf