Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:48:19 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <20190126065429.F872@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <201901251936.x0PJaepi089796@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201901251936.x0PJaepi089796@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> I would like to import mksh in base, https://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm >> And make it the default root shell (not necessary in one step) >> >> Why: >> 1/ it is tiny 400k (in the packaged version) all other shells fitting the >> expectation are bigger > It is more than twice the size of our current /bin/sh, and giving up > 200k on the nano/tiny/wifi BSD is hard to justify. 400k is near the > size of tcsh. That is only the dynamically linked size. It is much larger and slower than indicated by that. Statically linked /bin/sh is now about 15 times larger than in FreeBSD-1 (~1300K text instead of ~90K). Dynamical linkage costs more in runtime than the memory size expansion. E.g., /bin/echo in a shell loop is about 60% slower in -current than it was in FreeBSD-~5.2 using a CPU that is about twice as fast in -current and 8 CPUs instead of 1 (this should be good for CPU affinity of the shell process). Dynamic linkage alone is enough to give this slowdown. Static linkages seems to give a relatively smaller advantage in -current Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190126065429.F872>