Peter Memishian wrote: > > > i'm afraid i might be damming myself by making this suggestion, > > but would using a pre-compiled ksh script solve this problem? > > I'm still puzzled by the whole need to replace `sleep' with a built-in. > What was wrong with `sleep' as a C program?
The problem was that it lacked some stuff like sub-second timeout, support for hexadecimal floating-point values etc. There is nothing wrong with having "sleep" as C program but it is IMO cheaper to have just one version around instead of two codebases which need to be synced (as a small detail /usr/bin/sleep could be implemented as plain C code and use the ksh93 implementation of "sleep" in libshell (libshell contains the ksh93 core)). > The purpose in life of sleep > is to do nothing for a specified period of time; why does the performance > of it matter? No clue. Main issue was to avoid code duplication, maintaince issues and footprint. > From where I sit, it seems this transition has already cost us too much. > Maybe it's time to re-evaluate. Erm... what exactly did cost too much ? The biggest problem so far is that I was careless, stupid and kept my brain offline - otherwise I would've noticed that I have to BFU my test system _twice_ (one time to update to the ksh93-integration update1 tree and the 2nd time to test BFU with the new codebase) instead of only once. That's causing all the trouble right now, but we're cleaning up (and learned some lessions for the next time). ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.ma...@nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
