Bash has some built-in too. Sam On 31 Aug 2018 19:11, "James Hanley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> We had some bash scripts that we converted to use busybox ash as bash > (removed any array constructs) and when comparing the two scripts - it > seems that running them under busybox yields less idle time compared > to bash. > > I was expecting that busybox would (itself) take up more time simply > because of vfork, but yield more CPU time overall since there would be > less overhead as a number of the applets would not fork&exec. > > Is this expected behavior that busybox overall yields less idle time? > -Jim > _______________________________________________ > busybox mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox >
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
