On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 09:50:00PM -0400, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >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. > > >Indeed. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that every possible >angle of CRLF handling has been covered in one thread or another in the >last month or so. Let's leave this all in Eric's capable hands. I'm >confident that whatever he comes up with will be better than where we >started and a vast improvement overall for everyone. From what I've seen >so far, and what Rob's results would confirm, is that the changes made >already are a giant leap forward. Obviously if there turns out to be a >flaw in the delivered result, I am also very confident that someone on >this list will find it and report it. Until then, we can all bask in >the bliss of an issue well-covered and the lack of a need for further >email on the subject. :-)
I agree. We certainly don't need any more email on the subject. More email would be overkill. cgf -- 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/
