On Sonntag, 21. April 2024 01:01:01 CEST Collin Funk wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > On 4/20/24 3:50 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > > On Linux: On Cygwin 2.9.0: > > > > in create-tests: time ./test-all.sh in create-tests: time > > ./test-all.sh > > sh: 1225 sec sh: 27406 sec > > py: 155 sec py: 2400 sec > > => about 8 times faster => more than 11 times faster > > What shell did you use for this test?
On Linux: dash. On Cygwin: bash > Would other shells even make a difference? You just have to replace the first line of gnulib-tool.sh: #!/bin/sh -> #!/bin/bash What I measure (with "GNULIB_TOOL_IMPL=sh time ./test-create-testdir-1.sh") is: dash 22 sec bash 20 sec I think that 'dash' is generally somewhat faster than 'bash'. However, gnulib-tool uses special bash syntax for appending to a list and for the module caching; this probably makes it faster with 'bash' than with 'dash', What matters most, in the comparison shell vs. Python, IMO, is the string processing [1]. Bruno [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-03/msg00160.html
