> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 2:20 PM
> To: Jordan Henderson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: 5.6.0 RC1 and the perl debugger
>
>
> At 02:15 PM 3/10/00 -0500, Jordan Henderson wrote:
> >The ideal is that we could build both, creating a perl.exe and a
> >perl_debug.exe. I rarely use the Perl debugger, but when I
> need it I want
> >it now and I'd hate to have to rebuild Perl to get it.
>
> Not really an option--building with debugging changes a
> *lot*. There'd be
> two perl.exes and two perlshr.exes. We might be able to play
> some games,
> but I think we'd be stuck with having to build all the XS
> modules twice too.
>
> >A faster perl is attractive, though. How much faster are we talking
> >about? So little that we'd never notice or >5%?
>
> I haven't benchmarked it or anything, but conventional wisdom
> seems to put
> it in the 3-8% range.
3-8% is enough to make me have it off. I occasionally run perl scripts over
some really really big files (in the multi-Gig range), or directories full of
files (in the tens of Gig range), and 3-8% means it will be done today or not
sometimes. If I found I had to have the perl debugger, I'd build a separate
perl in a separate PERL_ROOT and run the debugs from there.
YMMV, so it's still an open question on what the default should be.
>
> Dan
>
> --------------------------------------"it's like
> this"-------------------
> Dan Sugalski even samurai
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
> teddy bears get drunk
>
