On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Denys Vlasenko > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 4. ash >>> ~1000 lines, half of them to work around fork(). Not everything works, >>> and not really stable. I'm thinking about a thread-based ash so that >>> it would work faster, but stability first. >> >> hush may be a better shell to work with, it can avoid using fork() >> (will use vfork+preparatory_work_in_the_same_process_image+exec >> if built for NOMMU, which probably maps better to Win CreateProcess() >> call or whatever) > > And its functionality is quite limited too.
What do you miss most in it? > The > preparatory_work_in_the_same_process_image is done, all needed memory > is packed into a big block, then mapped over the child process. Anyway > I spent to much time with ash already. It was just a suggestion. Maybe hacking on ash will be actually easier. I don't know. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
