Re: Performances of awk

2000-04-27 Thread Mike Brennan
I won't have time to look at this until this weekend. I will respond with at least an explanation sometime this weekend. -- Mike On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 10:36:24AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote: > > |From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > |Date: 26 Apr 2000 18:41:32 +0200 > | > |

Re: Performances of awk

2000-04-27 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ On , April 27, 2000 at 10:37:28 (+0200), Akim Demaille wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Performances of awk > > Removing useless blanks, replacing the quadrigraphs, and simulating > $LINENO. Ah, line numbers! I didn't notice that with older "configure" scripts as input -

Re: Performances of awk

2000-04-27 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Greg" == Greg A Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Greg> Now I do have to ask what the purpose of that awk script could Greg> possibly be, and why it has to do things the way it seems to Greg> want to do them? Removing useless blanks, replacing the quadrigraphs, and simulating $LINENO.

Re: Performances of awk

2000-04-27 Thread Akim Demaille
|From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Date: 26 Apr 2000 18:41:32 +0200 | |If you concentrate the measure on this very script, the performance |penalty is frightening: | | It certainly is. This is a performance bug in mawk. | I observed the bug in mawk 1.3.3. | | To work ar

Re: Performances of awk

2000-04-26 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ On Wednesday, April 26, 2000 at 18:52:55 (-0700), Paul Eggert wrote: ] > Subject: Re: Performances of awk > > It certainly is. This is a performance bug in mawk. > I observed the bug in mawk 1.3.3. > > To work around the problem somewhat, please try replacing this:

Re: Performances of awk

2000-04-26 Thread Paul Eggert
From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 26 Apr 2000 18:41:32 +0200 If you concentrate the measure on this very script, the performance penalty is frightening: It certainly is. This is a performance bug in mawk. I observed the bug in mawk 1.3.3. To work around the problem some

Re: Performances of awk

2000-04-26 Thread Greg A. Woods
[ On , April 26, 2000 at 18:41:32 (+0200), Akim Demaille wrote: ] > Subject: Performances of awk > > What's so expensive is the finalizing loop which uses a small AWK > script. If you concentrate the measure on this very script, the > performance penalty is frightening: &g

Performances of awk

2000-04-26 Thread Akim Demaille
Hi! According to the documentation, mawk is preferred over gawk because it is faster. Here's an interesting phenomenon: | ~/src/fileutils % time AWK=mawk ~ace/autoconf -m ~ace | 16,40s user 0,26s system 95% cpu 17,512 total | ~/src/fileutils % time AWK=gawk ~ace/autoconf -m ~ace | 7,68s user