Re: Question about ash and getopts

[Larry Hall <cygwin-lh at cygwin dot com>]

At 09:57 PM 12/31/2003, Shankar Unni you wrote:
>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.


Nor was I.  I was simply providing some history.


>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..


I provided my suggestion, which Peter followed.  It's the ash maintainer 
that has the final word on what, if anything, happens next and/or what
the criteria should be.



--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     


--
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/