cc: Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com Darren.Moffat at sun.com james.d.carlson at
sun.com ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org PSARC-ext at
sun.com
Subject: Re: Re: [busybox-dev] [ksh93-integration-discuss] ksh93 Integration
Update 1 Amendments1 [PSARC/2008/344 FastTrack timeout 06/03/2008]
--------
> > > Did you thing about the fact that ksh93 is _really_ big and that people
> > > who
> > > like to use OpenSolaris in embedded environments probably cannot use
> > > ksh93 f
> or
> > > this reason?
> >
> > Erm... the issue is the other way around - the use of builtin commands
> > enables ksh93 to work much faster and with less memory (since you can
> > avoid awk/sed/tr/etc. completely and even avoid temporary files for
>
> You would need to prove this on an embedded system. I am not convinced at all.
>
> If you run huge shell scripts like "configure", I would expect the ksh to be
> faster but for the scripts that Solaris uses for startup, things look much
> different.
>
We replaced /bin/sh and the 35 commands in libcmd by ksh93 and all the
libraries on a hand held device a couple of years ago and found
that it took less space, not more. We used a dynamically linked ksh93
so that only one copy of libcmd and libast were needed.
It also ran faster.
If you want to do the math yourself. Add the following sizes:
ksh93 (dynamicall linked) libshell.so libcmd.so libast.so libdll.so
and then subtract the size of thw following:
basename cat chgrp chmod chown cksum cmp comm cp cut date dirname
expr fmt fold getconf head id join ln logname md5sum mkdir mkfifo
mv paste pathchk rev rm rmdir sh stty sum sync tail tee tty uname
uniq wc
If some of these are hard links on your system, just subtract one of them.
David Korn
dgk at research.att.com
