Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:18:35 +0400
From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
To: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>
Subject: Re: Environment handling broken in /bin/sh with changes to {get,set,put}env()
Message-ID: <20070707191835.GA4368@nagual.pp.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20070707133102.C14065@thor.farley.org>
References: <20070704180000.GA34042@nagual.pp.ru> <20070704144159.X77978@thor.farley.org> <20070704195939.GA35302@nagual.pp.ru> <20070704235630.GA42227@nagual.pp.ru> <20070704215154.O77978@thor.farley.org> <20070705115816.GA50506@nagual.pp.ru> <20070705105922.F98700@thor.farley.org> <20070707130859.GA96605@nagual.pp.ru> <20070707131359.GB96605@nagual.pp.ru> <20070707133102.C14065@thor.farley.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 01:51:11PM -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote: > I agree that it would be faster for a subset of an existing environ. On > the other hand, in the case of emptying the environment, my method would > be faster since no deallocation, allocation nor setenv() calls would be > called assuming putenv() was not used. I could try a few tests to see > what is faster in which case, but I do not think environ changes happen > often enough to make speed a factor. Well, lets go with that. -- http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070707191835.GA4368>