Does this provided a noticeable performance increase? Do you have benchmarks?
+1. I'm not convinced this is useful. Maybe for looping sh scripts that prefer applets (i.e. do not perform an execve() everytime busybox is called), but I'm willing to bet that even in that kind of script the performance bottleneck will be something else - typically, invocation of external commands, or any kind of system call really. For normal scripts, the cost of application lookup is basically made negligible by the cost of execve() in the first place. Plus dynamic symbol resolution if you're not using static linking. O(log n) calls to strcmp is cheap, except in very tight loops; and a full busybox applet invocation rarely happens in a tight loop. So I wouldn't add to the code size to optimize that part without benchmarks showing a real performance improvement. -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
