Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:24:47 +0000 From: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> To: Mikko T <mikko@dynas.se> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: commit MAKE_SHELL? Message-ID: <20000425232447.A32567@happy.checkpoint.com> In-Reply-To: <200004251528.RAA29727@m2.dynas.se>; from mikko@dynas.se on Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 05:28:37PM %2B0200 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004231837560.46547-200000@green.dyndns.org>; <20000425170951.A29390@happy.checkpoint.com> <200004251528.RAA29727@m2.dynas.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 05:28:37PM +0200, Mikko T wrote:
> >Anatoly Vorobey:
>
> >On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 06:51:16PM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
>
> >> I certainly don't mind adding more shells to the ${MAKE_SHELL} logic, but
> >> so far have only done ksh because using pdksh as the ${MAKE_SHELL} does,
> >> for me, result in about 10% faster make world time, and speeds port
> >> building enormously
>
> >Do you have any guesses about what causes this speed increase? What does
> >our shell suck at, in terms of speed? Maybe we could try and speed it up.
>
> I compared some complex shell scripts on different platforms, albeit
> quite a while back (FreeBSD 2.something, I think). FreeBSD didn't do
> too well, speedwise, mainly due to not having a built-in "test", thus
> having to execute "/bin/test" (or "/bin/[") a lot.
Well, *should* we have a built-in "test"? I gather the original ash didn't
have it due to the KIS principle. But if it speeds things up considerably,
it's not much of a bloat, is it? I'd volunteer to write it.
--
Anatoly Vorobey,
mellon@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~mellon/
"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G.K.Chesterton
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000425232447.A32567>