On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:22:11AM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote: >On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:06:19PM -0400, Williams, Gerald S (Jerry) wrote: >>Seriously, I'd have a hard time believing that supporting >><CR><LF> endings would noticably impact performance if it >>were done as part of upstream BASH. > >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>You haven't been paying attention, it seems. >> >>We've already been over this ground. The performance impact for >>turning on bash's automatic CRLF handling is profound. That's why >>we're here. > >I guess WJM around here. :-) But perhaps I've been paying more >attention than you think. > >If a patch is incorporated into upstream BASH, it's not going to cause >performance problems. If it did, it would be rejected. That's >something for the upstream maintainers to decide.
I was specifically referring to your assertion that you would have a hard time believing that CRLF handling would impact performance. Since bash already has CRLF handling that impacts performance severely I don't see any basis in believing that just getting something included upstream would be a guarantee that there would be no performance problems. But, Eric has weighed in on the subject and if he says that there isn't much impact with his change, I certainly believe him. cgf -- 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/