On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:37:56 Egmont Koblinger wrote:
> I looked at the problem a while ago, and figured out that bash's speed
> improved quite a lot during versions, even though the latest is still not
> as fast as it should be, but much better than previous versions. I figured
> out that with bash
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:25:59 Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:44:13 +1100 Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:09:45 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 11:43:35PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > > > What do you think would be the best to do about it?
>
Hi guys,
I looked at the problem a while ago, and figured out that bash's speed
improved quite a lot during versions, even though the latest is still not
as fast as it should be, but much better than previous versions. I figured
out that with bash-4.2 the slowness it bearable and wasn't worth it
Hello,
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 07:44:13 +1100 Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:09:45 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 11:43:35PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > > What do you think would be the best to do about it?
> >
> > find out where the slowness *actually* comes
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 04:09:45 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 11:43:35PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > What do you think would be the best to do about it?
>
> find out where the slowness *actually* comes from. oprofile, or maybe
> callgrind (once you isolated the process).
I
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 11:43:35PM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> What do you think would be the best to do about it?
>
find out where the slowness *actually* comes from. oprofile, or maybe
callgrind (once you isolated the process).
___
mc-devel mailing
