In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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/
