Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-Id: <200312291954.hBTJsZqd000543@guild.plethora.net> From: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach) Reply-To: seebs AT plethora DOT net (Peter Seebach) To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Question about ash and getopts In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:37:52 EST." Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:54:35 -0600 X-IsSubscribed: yes In message , Igor Pechtcha nski writes: >I'm sure this discussion is in the archives somewhere. A first run of casual searching hasn't turned it up. However, since I happen to have an unmunged ash source around, I removed getopts from it. # Without getopts $ ls -l obj/sh -rwxr-xr-x 1 seebs wheel 116024 Dec 29 12:50 obj/sh # with getopts $ ls -l obj/sh -rwxr-xr-x 1 seebs wheel 116440 Dec 29 12:51 obj/sh 416 bytes? Is this some kind of practical joke? The one thing I saw in the archive said that removing getopts saved 13k of space. To remove getopts, I removed: * getoptscmd * The reference to getoptscmd in builtin.def * getopts * getoptsreset The entirety of options.c only has about 3k of code in it at all. 416 *bytes*? Admittedly, I did this compile on NetBSD, but the code in question is 100% portable, and the same everywhere. It sounds to me like someone trimmed a lot of things, without any attention at all to how large the individual things were. I don't think anyone can convince me that a 416-byte difference in code, or even twice that, is big enough to justify thumbing one's nose at POSIX. -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/