From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 26 07:24:22 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA99916A4E2; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:24:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E29743D4C; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:24:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6Q7OFOj081019; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:24:15 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id k6Q7OFLi081018; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:24:15 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from yar) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:24:15 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20060726072415.GC79886@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <200607251720.k6PHKMau082559@repoman.freebsd.org> <44C6FD55.7040204@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44C6FD55.7040204@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc.subr X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:24:22 -0000 On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 10:27:49PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > yar 2006-07-25 17:20:22 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > etc rc.subr > > Log: > > Avoid extra runs of test(1) by using its built-in logical operations. > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.63 +9 -15 src/etc/rc.subr > > > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/etc/rc.subr.diff?&r1=1.62&r2=1.63&f=h > > I'm pretty sure that this commit has the opposite effect from what you > intended. If you do: > > [ foo -a bar ] > > then the bar test will always be run, whereas if you do > > [ foo ] && [ bar ] > > bar won't run unless foo succeeds. I believed test(1) was smarter than that. But as a matter of fact, -a won't skip bar even if foo is false, neither will -o if foo is true. Is this a bug or a required feature? > Also, you should be aware that in our /bin/sh test is a builtin, so what > you're trying to optimize for is not actually an issue to start with. I admit that I was under the opposite impression that test(1) is external to our sh(1). Perhaps our sh(1) manpage didn't state that clearly enough. (Just clarified it.) Anyway, I should have looked at builtin(1), it said the truth. > Unless you can show that this commit actually does improve performance, I'd > appreciate it if you'd reverse it. No objection! Fetched my back-out tool and gone applying it... -- Yar