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 List <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:32:20 -0600
- Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts
- Reply-to: seebs at plethora dot net (Peter Seebach)
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Larry Hall writes:
>Indeed. That it would be. Of course, like I said, lot's of things have
>changed so the results today don't necessarily conflict with the findings
It's possible. My guess is that the big improvement was nuking the history
and job control stuff, both of which probably imply some overhead.
>Would you be willing to take this a step further and provide some
>configuration timings for some of the existing Cygwin packages? Of
>particular interest would be the larger packages, like binutils, gcc, and
>gdb. If these have favorable results, I think it could spark some
That'll take a while. My first attempt to reinstall cygwin failed in
a dramatic way, so I won't have it installed for some time.
If I get time (and I may actually have to go back to my "real" work shortly),
I will try to run a test using the bells-and-whistles /bin/sh used on
NetBSD. I haven't tracked it down, but my guess is that some frequently
used configure commands may be builtins in that shell, which would EASILY
swamp any marginal benefit from having the shell be a bit smaller.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html