On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 13:53, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 11/9/2010 13:38, schrieb Ãvar ArnfjÃrà Bjarmason: >> I understood your previous comments to mean that the invocation time >> of git-* on one hand and cat(1) on the other hand had to do with how >> many DLL's the former needed. > > I was only guessing; I can't explain the timing difference. > >> Since git-sh-i18n--envsubst needs the same DLL's (i.e. the libc) as >> cat(1) and *nothing else* it should be as fast as cat(1) and not as >> slow as git-*(1) once I fix that unfortunate Makefile bug, right? > > Wrong. Please accept it as a fact (and I'll forgive your ignorance ;) I > would like to spend the time explaining the reasons only if you want to > compile git on Windows yourself. I'd usually check out things like these myself in a virtual machine, but in this case I'd have to fork over a significant amount of cash just to get a test environment on a system I'm not going to use. I'd have the same issue if someone pointed out an issue with the series on e.g. AIX, HP/UX etc. Anyway, I don't see any sensible reason for why a Unix utility like cat(1) would be fast but a utility of ours that does similar things / links to the same libraries (and no more) wouldn't be. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html