Making /bin/sh == bash. Has the time come?
Mon Jun 20 13:26:00 GMT 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
According to Corinna Vinschen on 6/11/2005 2:49 AM:
>>>Looks like the time has come.
>>Wow. I never expected that bash would actually be faster.
>>I would appreciate getting a few more benchmarks for other packages.
>>If this holds out then moving to bash is a no-brainer.
> Looks like we're just waiting for Eric Blake to return from vacation.
Well, I've just returned, but have several hundred emails to plow through
to see what else happened while I was out. Have any of these benchmarks
been run with the bash-3.0-2 experimental version?
Currently, bash-3.0-2 dynamically links in libintl and libiconv (along
with at least sed and coreutils, which is a good reason that these
libraries should be made part of the base packages). Does dynamic linking
affect the time for a fork() to take place, positively or negatively?
Also, I am still waiting for an updated libreadline6 package before bash
can dynamically link against libreadline as opposed to its own static
version of readline. And it will take some time before I can audit the
bash source code to see if there are any fork/exec pairs that can be
rewritten with a spawn idiom, to see if that offers any speed improvements.
Life is short - so eat dessert first!
Eric Blake email@example.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin