Re: Question about ash and getopts

[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)

Agreed!

-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/