Daniel Stone wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 04:23:52PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote: > > Uhm... a while ago we hit the same problem and did some research on the > > issue and a diffent route by switching the shell used by libtool from > > "bash" to "ksh93" and did some minor modifications (e.g. enable more > > ksh93 builtin commands, replace some of the "sed" usage by > > builtin-string operators (which are common between "bash" and "ksh93" > > but libtool didn't use them) etc. (the resulting script no longer does > > unneccesary |fork()|+|exec()| calls (since ksh93 doesn't |fork()| for > > subshells&co.))) ... and as a result we hit a similar performance > > improvement as seen with the "dolt" tool... > > Thanks for the suggestion, but given the choice between forking a > multi-thousand-line shell script
Erm.. I didn't really attempt to fork it, I just replaced the shell which is used by libtool. The remaining changes, e.g. stuff like... -- snip -- #!/usr/bin/ksh93 builtin basename builtin dirname builtin mkdir builtin rmdir # etc. -- snip -- ... was done to squish more performance out of the script. > and replacing it with a ten line shell > script, I think we'll stick with the one that isn't insane. Ok... but "dolt" may been to be adopted to other compilers (like Sun Workshop/Forte/Studio, icc etc.) and then it will be a bit more than the 10 lines (and adopting it for other POSIX-like shells may be nice, too - "dolt" could greately benefit from "ksh93", too (using the same stuff as used for "libtool" and by implementing some of the changes listed in http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/shell/shellstyle/)) ... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
