> > > >>> 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.
And if you start them as individual commands, there's no fork/exec you can save. If you run ksh93, then you save the fork/exec. Casper
