On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:28 AM Peng Yu wrote:
> We are talking about unit testing in the bash C source code, not bash
> scripts.
>
While toying with the loadable builtins I came up with this:
https://github.com/pgas/newt_builtin/blob/master/make.libbash
you need to set BASH_PATH so that it p
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:45 PM Peng Yu wrote:
(...)
> Yes and no. For a particular bash script, you can quantify which bash
> features are the most time-consuming.
(...)
> (...) But you can not profile all the
> bash scripts that have ever been written. Since there are only limited
> features in
> You're whacking moles. Use a profiler. That's what they're for.
I've already shown that $() is a major problem to slow down the speed
and I have reduced using its usage in my code and significantly
improved the performance. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that it is not
necessary to systematical
We are talking about unit testing in the bash C source code, not bash scripts.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 8:03 PM G. Branden Robinson
wrote:
>
> At 2018-12-27T17:34:49-0800, Eduardo Bustamante wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 5:15 PM Peng Yu wrote:
> > (...)
> > > Since the main() function is alr
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 7:37 PM G. Branden Robinson
wrote:
>
> At 2018-12-27T18:39:26-0600, Peng Yu wrote:
> > What I meant in my original email is that I want something for testing
> > if there is a command line argument (one or more, the exact number
> > does not matter). $# gives more than that
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 5:38 PM Peng Yu wrote:
>
> > I don't believe that at all. The number of positional parameters is kept
> > anyway. It's not recalculated when you compare it to another number, so
> > it's just as fast as a simple comparison of two integers.
>
> Getting the number $# is slow.
At 2018-12-27T19:47:08-0600, Peng Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 7:37 PM G. Branden Robinson
> > As others have noted, if you are worried about marginal performance
> > impacts this small, margin you are probably writing in the wrong
> > language, or distracting yourself with tiny details when
At 2018-12-27T17:34:49-0800, Eduardo Bustamante wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 5:15 PM Peng Yu wrote:
> (...)
> > Since the main() function is already there, why there is not already
> > an easy way to compile it? How do you do unit-testing then for the
> > code?
>
> This is very easy to figure
At 2018-12-27T19:24:22-0600, Peng Yu wrote:
> > I don't believe that at all. The number of positional parameters is kept
> > anyway. It's not recalculated when you compare it to another number, so
> > it's just as fast as a simple comparison of two integers.
>
> Getting the number $# is slow.
By
> I don't believe that at all. The number of positional parameters is kept
> anyway. It's not recalculated when you compare it to another number, so
> it's just as fast as a simple comparison of two integers.
Getting the number $# is slow.
> And even if it weren't -- if performance is *that* impo
At 2018-12-27T18:39:26-0600, Peng Yu wrote:
> What I meant in my original email is that I want something for testing
> if there is a command line argument (one or more, the exact number
> does not matter). $# gives more than that info, because it tells not
> only whether is any command line argumen
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 5:15 PM Peng Yu wrote:
(...)
> Since the main() function is already there, why there is not already
> an easy way to compile it? How do you do unit-testing then for the
> code?
This is very easy to figure out from the source code, right :)?
(Hint: there is no "unit" testi
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 12:27 PM Chet Ramey wrote:
>
> On 12/26/18 4:31 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to compile hashlib.c to try its main(). But I got the
> > following error. What is the correct commands to compile it? Thanks.
>
> Think about the error message:
>
> > "_xmalloc",
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 4:50 PM Peng Yu wrote:
(...)
> What I meant in my original email is that I want something for testing
> if there is a command line argument (one or more, the exact number
> does not matter). $# gives more than that info, because it tells not
> only whether is any command li
Op 28-12-18 om 01:39 schreef Peng Yu:
What I meant in my original email is that I want something for testing
if there is a command line argument (one or more, the exact number
does not matter). $# gives more than that info, because it tells not
only whether is any command line argument, but also
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 3:19 PM Martijn Dekker wrote:
>
> Op 27-12-18 om 19:22 schreef Chet Ramey:
> > On 12/26/18 10:49 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
> >
> >> Although [[ -z ${1+s} ]] and (($#)) works for testing if $1 is set,
> >> neither of them are uniformly better performance wise. In this case,
> >> s
Op 27-12-18 om 19:22 schreef Chet Ramey:
On 12/26/18 10:49 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
Although [[ -z ${1+s} ]] and (($#)) works for testing if $1 is set,
neither of them are uniformly better performance wise. In this case,
should [[ -v 1 ]] be supported?
So you're saying that neither of the existing
On 12/26/18 2:56 PM, Eduardo A. Bustamante López wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 12:40:09PM -0600, Peng Yu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can not mkdir -p . in /tmp/ via the loadable mkdir. What is the
>> difference between /tmp/ and other directories? I am on Mac OS X. Is
>> this a bug in mkdir?
The diff
Simple variables convert to array variables dynamically, but that doesn't
mean they should be interpreted exactly as if they are. I see that more of
just a convenient feature.
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 1:02 AM Bize Ma Chet Ramey () wrote:
>
> > >
> > > While this works:
> > >
> > > var=(hello); echo
On 12/25/18 11:28 AM, Peng Yu wrote:
> If I add a command after the builtin sleep, then the EXIT trap will be
> triggered upon typing ctrl-C.
>
> If the last command is removed, then the EXIT trap will not be
> triggered upon typing ctrl-C.
It's a bug in bash-4.4, fixed in bash-5.0.
--
``The l
On 12/26/18 4:31 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to compile hashlib.c to try its main(). But I got the
> following error. What is the correct commands to compile it? Thanks.
Think about the error message:
> "_xmalloc", referenced from:
> _hash_create in hashlib.o
> _hash_copy
On 12/26/18 10:49 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
> Although [[ -z ${1+s} ]] and (($#)) works for testing if $1 is set,
> neither of them are uniformly better performance wise. In this case,
> should [[ -v 1 ]] be supported?
So you're saying that neither of the existing options performs better
than the other
22 matches
Mail list logo
