On 01/12/2017 03:53 PM, francisco dominguez wrote: > I have a little doubt as to the gnu code, why is it so complex and long? > Other systems facing the same problem have a much simpler implementation, > for example the ls command in gnu: > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=coreutils.git;a=blob;f=src/ls.c;h=556313c71ebeb853c3fe9cf3c0312639de8aded0;hb=HEAD > > And in other system, for example, freebsd, is more simple: > > https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/bin/ls/ls.c
Most likely because GNU ls has more features than FreeBSD ls. There's probably also some code cost for robustness issues (such as trying hard for minimal-width columns that are always aligned, rather than being lazy by over-spacing things or having an extra-wide column throw off alignment of the remaining columns). There's other things factoring into your comparison: the files you point to show less than 1000 lines for FreeBSD ls.c, compared to more than 5000 lines for GNU ls.c, but you did not account for how many lines are in other files that get linked together to form the final executable. For example, a quick search of the BSD code shows a variable named 'attrs_off' which is only referenced twice in the file, so to find how the variable is actually used you have to go browsing around for another .c file. So file size is a very poor measure of executable complexity. Your question is very broad. Is there any specific feature that you are comparing side-by-side, and wondering what the difference is? -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
