On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:17:26PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> | Actually I was wondering if there aren't more use cases for a "read
> | until you find the following sequence" system call or just something
> | specifiying a (simple) regular expression.
>
> I was too - but I suspect that the o
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:17:26PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> | Actually I was wondering if there aren't more use cases for a "read
> | until you find the following sequence" system call or just something
> | specifiying a (simple) regular expression.
>
> I was too - but I suspect that th
Date:Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:50:59 +0100
From:Joerg Sonnenberger
Message-ID: <20160312135059.ga27...@britannica.bec.de>
| I'm not sure. A lot of shell processing also happens on real files.
There are three cases that could work to improve this - when input is
seekable,
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:08:10PM +, David Laight wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:09:06PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> >
> > Then I ktrace'd it, and of course, the "read" builtin command is reading
> > one character at a time. If you think about it just a litte, you will
> > see that it m
On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:09:06PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> Then I ktrace'd it, and of course, the "read" builtin command is reading
> one character at a time. If you think about it just a litte, you will
> see that it must work that way (it is only permitted to take one line of
> data from
Date:Mon, 7 Mar 2016 05:21:35 +
From:David Holland
Message-ID: <20160307052135.ga7...@netbsd.org>
| pretty bad!
I thought I'd verify my assumption about echo, so modified (my already
modified) script by simply removing the "echo". Not the same test
at all, so
Date:Mon, 7 Mar 2016 05:21:35 +
From:David Holland
Message-ID: <20160307052135.ga7...@netbsd.org>
| Today it came up (in the context of something Christos did) that shell
| read loops are horribly, horribly slow.
I had been intending to look at shell performa
