This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Just say *no* to ash?
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 02:00:18PM -0700, Geoffrey Noer wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 04, 1999, Chris Faylor wrote:
>> I've just compiled bash with --enable-minimal-config which is supposed to
>> produce a /bin/sh-like version of bash. It's about 2.2 times the size of
>> ash when finished.
>> While I like the thought of using a small, fast shell for configures I'm
>> wondering if this is ever going to buy us as much as it loses in lack of
>> compatibility with a "standard". And, we seem to be constantly fixing
>> bugs in ash, as well.
>> Does anyone have an opinion on whether ash should go?
>Hmmmm. Well, Cygwin has sped up a bit so perhaps the discrepency
>isn't as noticable. When we changed to ash for configures, I think
>the speed-up was well worth the additional maintenance of ash. That
>may still be the case, dunno. I haven't compared them recently.
Actually, after doing some tests, I withdraw my proposal. It's still
*a lot* slower with bash, even when bash is "minimally configured".
I have been testing the newest version of ash with some freshly applied
changes that shrink its size and remove all non-/bin/sh isms. It seems
to be working ok.