[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >- Much faster execution thanks to many builtin commands and less > >|fork()|'ing. > > Please measure this in doing builds.
I don't have a suiteable machine (I guess my Ultra5 (which swaps itself more or less to death while building OS/Net) doesn't count, right ?) to do any benchmarks of OS/Net builds. And I doubt we will see much because most of the builtins have been turned off for now. > I think you've been a long on pro and a bit short on contra; That's why I wrote "- <Insert more horrible things here>"... :-) > Contra: > - Makefiles should not contain shell scripts; commands > generally should be simple and not use extensive syntax Why ? If this rule would be implemented strictly OS/Net would contain zillions of small five-line mini-scripts. IMO small shell script fragments should be allowed if this makes the build infrastructure more understandable (AFAIK that's normal practice in the OS/Net Makefiles). > - New powerful ksh93 syntax adds an additional hurdle to > maintaining Makefiles; it requires people to know and understand > all the finesses of ksh93 and, IMHO, there are too many of them. Erm, I agree partially with that. That's why I was more thinking about POSIX shell level with straightforward extensions, e.g. associative arrays (which work like normal POSIX shell arrays except that the index is a string, not an integer), builtin commands etc. ... I wasn't thinking about things like discipline methods, traps, compound variables or |complex| math datatypes etc. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
