This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Question about ash and getopts
- From: Shankar Unni <shankarunni at netscape dot net>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:57:36 -0800
- Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
- References: <Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:34:06 EST." <6.0.1.1.0.20031229152216.03bb6430@127.0.0.1> <200312292048.hBTKm6qd026306@guild.plethora.net> <6.0.1.1.0.20031229161810.03bbd940@127.0.0.1>
Larry Hall wrote:
Performance of configure scripts was abysmal when /bin/sh == /bin/bash.
Umm, ash+getopts != bash. I think this is an apples-and-oranges
comparison. Certainly ash (in any form) would be much faster than bash -
no argument there, and I don't think anyone's advocating linking sh to
bash again.
I guess the big question now is: how would Peter "prove" to anyone's
liking that ash+getopts ~= ash-getopts in performance (and nowhere near
"bash")? Is there some acceptance criterion that anyone's willing to
spell out? PTC is fine, but it's hard to evaluate a patch unless an
objective (or even subjective) performance criterion is spelled out..
--
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/