On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at oracle.com> wrote: > > > On 18/03/2010 15:58, Jennifer Pioch wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Darren J Moffat >> <darrenm at opensolaris.org> wrote: >>> >>> Maybe I don't understand enough about ksh93 (since I'm a zsh user for >>> interactive shell work) but I don't understand what this case is about. >>> >>> What benefit does this case bring ? >> >> One advantage is MUCH HIGHER performance. A simple loop iterating over >> my source tree with basename takes 26 seconds without a builtin and >> 0.1 seconds when basename is a builtin: >> $ timex ksh93 -c 'find work/src | while read i ; do x=$(basename $i) ; >> done' >> >> real 26.35 >> user 9.34 >> sys 1.34 >> >> $ timex ksh93 -c 'builtin basename ; find work/src | while read i ; do >> x=$(basename $i) ; done' >> >> real 0.11 >> user 0.07 >> sys 0.03 >> >> This ROCKS incredibly!!!! :) >> >>> How does this interact with PSARC/2009/377 in kernel pfexec, maybe it >>> doesn't need to and that is an okay answer, when ksh93 is the profile >>> shell >>> ? >> >> ksh93-integration-discuss@ currently has an ongoing discussion about >> this and the broken profile shell concept. There are two concurrent >> proposals to integrate the concepts of shell builtins and profile >> shells. > > Then this case should be put in waiting need spec until that discussion > reaches some consensus.
Why? The majority in the discussion already said that this is not a bug in ksh93. Why should this case wait for something which is not a bug? Why should this case wait for something where not even a consensus has been reached whether the issue is a bug or not? Or is this a delay tactic again to stall? > > The profile shell concept is not broken, Go to the bash authors and ask them. Ask them why they never accepted the patches for profile shell support. Why did BSD never adopt the profile shell system? Did Linux adopt this concept? The answer is all a big, sticky NO. > some people may not like what it is > or how it works but it is approved a delivered architecture. It has been > deliver as part of Solaris since Solaris 8 and is based on functionality > going back more than 15 years in various Trusted Solaris (and even before > that name) releases of SunOS. > >>> If so then I wonder why we are even shipping the GNU >>> ones. >> >> I don't see the point either since the ksh93 commands have both >> features from GNU AND BSD > > Do the have 100% of the features with exactly the same behaviour though ? Yes, I think so. Jenny -- Jennifer Pioch, Uni Frankfurt
