On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:36:58 +0100 Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > "Garrett D'Amore" <garrett_damore at tadpole.com> wrote: > > What concerns me, is that the extra time (2 milliseconds was a rough > > measurement done in one case) it takes to spawn a shell is going to have > > a negative impact on overall system performance if this becomes the > > default shell. > > > > The shell is forked/execed a _lot_. Consider builds of Solaris, where > > "make" spends almost all of its time execing the shell.
> I would take this as important argument for keeping the Bourne shell > for /bin/sh. > Instead of replacing /bin/sh and breaking backwards compatibility, > it would help more to find a useful way to define how to directly refer to > the POSIX shell (and this way e.g. allowing to standardize on > #!<interpreter>). huh will /bin/sh also be subject to isaexec? where are the /bin/make timing comparisons with /bin/sh sans isaexec vs ksh93 with isaexec? did anyone consider fixing the *ancient* /bin/make+shell relationship: each line to its own shell => each recipe to its own shell? how about forking one shell per /bin/make and communicating via pipes? -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ --
