Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> But no extra process is involved here; the shell script does not fork.
>...
>> The overhead is so small on my Debian stable host (with a 5-year-old
>> CPU) that I can't easily measure it. Perhaps things are different on
>> Cygwin
Paul Eggert wrote:
Eric Blake writes:
Another benefit of making gunzip a full-blown executable rather than a
shell wrapper is that the startup time is faster (and on cygwin and mingw,
the extra process and time of a shell script wrapper is noticeable).
But no extra process is involved here; th
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You have a point here, and there is even precedence for this - coreutils
> intentionally ships ls, dir, and vdir as separate executables, rather than
> shipping dir and vdir as shell wrappers around ls. They share the same
> source except for a minimal #de
> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 23:39:55 -0600
> From: Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Karl Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], bug-gzip@gnu.org
>
> $ gunzip --help |head -n2
> Usage: gzip [OPTION]... [FILE]...
> Compress or uncompress FILEs (by default, compress F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[Adding bug-gzip, since the issue of gunzip as a script vs. an executable
belongs there; the thread started here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2007-04/msg00019.html]
According to Eli Zaretskii on 4/28/2007 9:20 PM:
>> This suggests to
