X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10201301709.AA16366@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Long delays running SED under Win98SE
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:09:55 -0600 (CST)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
In-Reply-To: <1858-Wed30Jan2002185203+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jan 30, 2002 06:52:03 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> 
> > From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:19:12 -0600 (CST)
> > 
> > If this is for wildcard expansion - we shouldn't do any operations on
> > strings that don't include * ? ...
> 
> Also [..].

Why is this needed?  I would expect we would expand anything without
* ? or ...  

> It's possible to make such a change in c1args.c, but it won't do much
> good, since Sed arguments tend to include wildcard characters quite
> often.

It would stop us from doing un-needed searches on all arguments and 
speed up execution; If we quote the wildcard we wouldn't expand?

> > Eventually I'd like to fix UNCs to work so avoid adding things that make
> > it worse
> 
> I don't think this has anything to do with the recent changes.  I'd be
> interested to know whether this slow-down happens only in CVS, and if
> so, what change(s) cause it, because I couldn't see anything we
> changed recently that would affect this (so I think v2.03 behaved the
> same).

A previous email said the behavior is seen in 2.03 and CVS - so I think
this is nothing new.  I would like to just be careful how we fix it 
(to not make UNC eventual support worse...)