> >>> It's fine to make use of the ksh builtin support for various > >>> commands, but > >>> can we please learn from the problems that occurred when we > >>> changed sleep > >>> to be a builtin recently (e.g. 6793120) and instead create trivial > >>> wrapper > >>> *programs* that access the builtin functionality through libshell? > >> > >> I already have a fix (tested and queued for my sponsor) for CR > >> #6793120 > >> which does something similar as you've proposed... > > > > So there is a unique pid for each program and thus it can still be > > pkill'd? > > If so, and if this fix involves wrappers, Wouldn't we have lost the > "no fork/exec" advantage of having shell builtins in the first place, > right?
My understanding is that the driving force is code sharing, not performance. If we are really concerned about the performance of the `sum' or `sleep' commands, something more fundamental is amiss. -- meem
