Re: Question about ash and getopts

[seebs at plethora dot net (Peter Seebach)]

In message <200312292334.hBTNYuqd024130@guild.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach writ
es:
>Can we just kill this now?  Take out the "-j", leave the support for getopts
>in the shell, and all the shell scripters will be happy.  The configure
>scripts will run at exactly the same speed, and I will happily join in
>defending the decision to trim the job control and history features from the
>shell to make a minimalist shell designed for scripting, leaving people the
>option of using bash or pdksh if they want an interactive shell.

I may be forced to retract this.

Out of idle curiousity, I did timing comparisons between the stripped-down
shell and the "bloated" /bin/sh on NetBSD.

The bloated shell wins, by about 15%.  I don't know why, but I suspect it
has to do with configure using something which is a builtin in the bigger
shell, and an external command in the smaller one.

I find this ironic.

-s

--
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/