Peter Memishian wrote: > > >>> It's fine to make use of the ksh builtin support for various > > >>> commands, but > > >>> can we please learn from the problems that occurred when we > > >>> changed sleep > > >>> to be a builtin recently (e.g. 6793120) and instead create trivial > > >>> wrapper > > >>> *programs* that access the builtin functionality through libshell? > > >> > > >> I already have a fix (tested and queued for my sponsor) for CR > > >> #6793120 > > >> which does something similar as you've proposed... > > > > > > So there is a unique pid for each program and thus it can still be > > > pkill'd? > > > > If so, and if this fix involves wrappers, Wouldn't we have lost the > > "no fork/exec" advantage of having shell builtins in the first place, > > right? > > My understanding is that the driving force is code sharing, not > performance.
"performace" is important, too. That's why we added the whole infratructure for compiled shell script (including "shcomp" and "shbinexec"). We just can't use it until a sufficient amount of time has passed to make sure that all build machines have the matching "shbinexec" kernel module (that would require a "flag day" ... in theory it could be done ASAP but that would IMO just cause unneccesary pain for the developers and admins (at least I would prefer to wait until at least B116)). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
