On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 01:58:14AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> The interesting fact is that, contrary to what I expected, running
> "configure" was improved by only about 1% on average.
That may come from the fact that "configure" uses only the most basic
shell constructs (it does not even use functions). Also, depending on
the actual tests, 1/4-1/3 of "configure"'s run time is spent in the
waitpid() system call, independent of the shell.
> Thus, it's bash's start-up which is the slow part, in the terms of
> actual speed, bash is not that far behind.
It would be interesting to compare something more complex than "configure"
scripts. "configure" scripts are huge but primitive.
Gabor
--
---------------------------------------------------------
MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
---------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
