Darren J Moffat wrote:
I don't see how the fix under review for this bug can be improving
performance by using ksh93. Which is the rationale in the bug for
switching nightly to ksh93.
Me neither.
There are a few saved processes by chaning 'sort | uniq' constructs to
'sort -u' but that can be done independent of ksh93.
Is there really that big a saving from using the builtins for:
63 builtin basename
64 builtin cp
65 builtin dirname
66 builtin mkdir
67 builtin mv
68 builtin rm
69 builtin rmdir
Or does chaning foo() {} to function foo { } actually make ksh93
perform significantly better some how and keep the code meaning exactly
the same ?
Why not also use the builtins for: cat, head ? They aren't used much in
nightly but they are used.
Where is the performance improvement coming from that is unique to
ksh93? and how much of an improvement is there ?
I think the original e-mail stated that this particular change does not
bring any performance enhancement. I agree the CR should be more
explicit what is it trying to achieve.
Getting nightly.sh faster will not make the nightly *build* noticeably
faster.
Do any of these changes mean that nightly no longer works with ksh88 ?
I'm afraid it is the case - e.g. the builtin stuff will prevent it from
working with ksh88.
In general I think there needs to be a consensus whether to rewrite old
ksh scripts to ksh93 if there is no clear reason for it.
v.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
