Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility

[Rob Walker <rwalker at qualcomm dot com>]

Thanks for reading, Brian.  Apologies to all that my recent tend to bulk.

The point of my post was to advocate igncr as the default for bash 3.  I 
realize I'm not alone in this advocacy.  I'm truly happy that bash 3 is 
super fast compared to bash 2, but bash 3's "incompatibility" is 
currently a (possibly serious for me) stumbling block.

What motivated today's work was the bash 3.2 announcement, which 
(apparently) doesn't make igncr the default.  Eric, what's your current 
thinking on this topic?

-Rob

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.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> 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/
>
>   


--
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/