Stefan Teleman wrote: > Roland Mainz wrote: > > 1. bash supports (like ksh93) binary plugins > > Great. I love 32-bit plugins.
What happens if libraries required by the plugins is only available as 64bit library ? > bash is the default root shell in OpenSolaris. I am a bit > uncomfortable with the idea of allowing loadable plugins for the root > shell. Why ? The plugins are only used when the user/script explicitly loads them... > > 2. bash4 now supports associative arrays which can grow quite large > > (OkOk, bash4 lacks compound variables and variable tree support (which > > was the main reason why we got a 64bit ksh93 (since we knew that > > variable trees with several GB are used on production systems (the > > largest core dump observed in 2004 on a production system was 30GB, most > > of this was in a single tree variable)))) and I don't see the reason of > > "artifically" limiting the array size on systems with enougth memory > > So, one winning argument for a 64-bit bash would be the ability to > generate extremely large core files, sized in excess of 30GB, a > feature which would not be available under 32-bit bash. Grumpf... the crash was actually caused by a commercial plugin... ... but my original comment still stands: IMO there should be no limit in the size if the host and OS is capaable of handling it (at least on 64bit Linux there are no limits). > Perhaps limiting the associative array size to something less than > 30GB would be a desirable feature to consider. It's only a suggestion. Would you agree to limit the array or tree size for JAVA or C++ applications, too ? > > 3. A bash4 compiled as AMD64 code runs faster than a 32bit x86 bash4> > > > version > > >> i think the bash demo stuff belongs in /contrib. > > > > Erm... /usr/demo/bash/ would be my preference... > > /contrib as in the /contrib repo at pkg.opensolaris.org Erm... I was thinking about a normal "SUNWbash-demo" package delivered via SFWNV - at least my current patch for SFWNV does it that way... ... anyway... as said I only want that "bash4" really gets in feature-sync with the ksh93-integration work - the current "bash3" in SFWNV is really a _pain_ and I wish that "bash4" really becomes better than that (but your replies worry me since it looks we're close of getting another poorly integrated shell) ... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
