This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Question about ash and getopts
- From: seebs at plethora dot net (Peter Seebach)
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 04:05:54 -0600
- Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
- Reply-to: seebs at plethora dot net (Peter Seebach)
In message <3FF3F058.4A9AF6A7@dessent.net>, Brian Dessent writes:
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>> Note also that, on the gcc configure script, the difference between /bin/sh
>> and bash is maybe 5 seconds on a script that takes nearly 3 minutes. It's
>> hard for me to imagine this being the source of the word "abysmal"; I'm
>> assuming something else was changed. Maybe different optimizer flags were
>> used on /bin/bash back then, which produced worse results?
>Or perhaps at the time the change was made fork/vfork was not nearly as
>optimized as it is now.
That wouldn't give ash any special advantages over bash; indeed, it would
seem to favor shells with *more* builtins.
I can imagine that the performance was awful; what I'm having trouble
understanding is how much of a difference the choice of shell would make,
given that I haven't found big differences yet.
>FWIW I was reading the archives about when
>/bin/sh became ash, and it was sometime between B18 and B19, so late
>1997/early 1998. That's going on six years ago, and I'm sure there have
>been plenty of core optimizations since.
Yup. 3 minutes to configure gcc isn't half bad. (And my laptop has issues
under Windows such that write caching is currently turned off.)
>(oh, and happy new year and thanks for everyone's work on Cygwin)
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html