On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Hmm.. functions. But I misread its description as "not supported" while the feature is actually supported. Interesting. -- Duy _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
