[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gnulib-tool.py speedup
From: |
Collin Funk |
Subject: |
Re: gnulib-tool.py speedup |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Apr 2024 17:53:16 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird |
On 4/20/24 4:50 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> What I measure (with "GNULIB_TOOL_IMPL=sh time ./test-create-testdir-1.sh")
> is:
> dash 22 sec
> bash 20 sec
dash 31 sec
bash 28 sec
Similar here. Looks like my desktop is just older than I remembered
originally.
> I think that 'dash' is generally somewhat faster than 'bash'. However,
> gnulib-tool uses special bash syntax for appending to a list and for the
> module caching; this probably makes it faster with 'bash' than with 'dash',
Ah, I see. I remember seeing the associative arrays for module
caching. I haven't spent much time using shells outside of bash so I
don't know how common support for those extensions are.
> What matters most, in the comparison shell vs. Python, IMO, is the string
> processing [1].
Yes, I remember reading that email. Thank you for the detailed
explanation. I guess that would also explain the Cygwin speed too?
Since as far as I know Windows doesn't have fork() and deals with
creating processes differently. I assume the Cygwin implementation is
limited by that.
Collin
- Re: beta-tester call draft, (continued)
Re: beta-tester call draft, Pádraig Brady, 2024/04/20
Re: beta-tester call draft, Bernhard Voelker, 2024/04/20
- Re: beta-tester call draft, Bruno Haible, 2024/04/20
- Re: beta-tester call draft, Paul Eggert, 2024/04/20
- Re: beta-tester call draft, Bruno Haible, 2024/04/20
- Re: beta-tester call draft, Bernhard Voelker, 2024/04/21
- Re: future Python evolution, Bruno Haible, 2024/04/21
- Re: future Python evolution, Paul Eggert, 2024/04/21
- Re: future Python evolution, Bruno Haible, 2024/04/21
- Re: future Python evolution, Paul Eggert, 2024/04/22