Lines 101-109 - As I indicated in an earlier review, I don't believe this is necessary. Both Nevada and the Solaris 10 patch gate do large pages automatically (or so-called out of the box) and so including these options is unnecessary. However, I've cc'ed Bart Smaalders who is an expert in this area who can suggest whether or not it makes sense to include this.I disagree... the comment explicitly cites the benchmarks (mhhh... I hoped the current comment was enougth... should I add the whole benchmark code and all the results as comment there (which raises the question if there is a size limit for comment sections in Makefiles...) ? =:-) ). And neither on my Ultra5 (B48, B51) or our university machines
Please no - there's is of course no reason to add such verbiage to the comments I am curious when (against which build) did you do your benchmarks and what sort of workload they consistent of?
Lines 70, 80, 331-332, 343-344, 384-385, 404-405, various other lines in wordexp() - It appears there's some sort of mismerge with Roger's PSARC 2006/659 fork extensions 6497356 fork extensionsYes, but AFAIK April merged the (current) ksh88 version back (in her SCCS tree). For the ksh93 version I've talked with Roger Faulkner... his new version uses |posix_spawn()|&co. (which is IMO a very good idea) but it's very late now to port these parts to the ksh93 version of |libc::wordexp()| ... I only stumbled over the new ksh88 version of |libc::wordexp()| at the end of May and getting the new version created&&_tested_ will take some time (creating a new patch is no problem... getting it tested will be another xx@@@!!-story) ... and pushing a new version without a good testing coverage by all OpenSolaris distributions for such a very risky part is IMO not a good idea (remember we have this alternative |libc::wordexp()| version in the tree because otherwise SMF may blow-up and the OpenSolaris distributions had problems to deal with the issue... and that's why I am now dragging this pain with me...).
But I'm talking about the code that is *not* under #if WORDEXP_KSH93. Unless I'm misreading the webrev, the *existing* wordexp() was mismerged with Roger's putback.
usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWarc/prototype_com usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWarc/prototype_i386 usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWarc/prototype_sparc I know what's happened to libcmd as part of this project but why are you no longer delivering the lint libraries via these three files (especially since you're updating llib-lcmd itself?)The Solaris libcmd API was moved to libc and therefore llib-lc takes over the duties for the |def*()|-API and the ksh93 parts of libcmd are currently not a public API, therefore we don't deliver libcmd.so and llib-lcmd ... ;-(
So then why are you updating llib-lcmd at all? Why not just remove it? Some potential future hope that it will be made public? dsc _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
