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/
