[ksh93-integration-discuss] ksh93 update 2 [PSARC/2009/063FastTrack timeout 02/09/2009]

[Peter Memishian]

 > >>> It's fine to make use of the ksh builtin support for various  
 > >>> commands, but
 > >>> can we please learn from the problems that occurred when we  
 > >>> changed sleep
 > >>> to be a builtin recently (e.g. 6793120) and instead create trivial  
 > >>> wrapper
 > >>> *programs* that access the builtin functionality through libshell?
 > >>
 > >> I already have a fix (tested and queued for my sponsor) for CR  
 > >> #6793120
 > >> which does something similar as you've proposed...
 > >
 > > So there is a unique pid for each program and thus it can still be  
 > > pkill'd?
 > 
 > If so, and if this fix involves wrappers, Wouldn't we have lost the  
 > "no fork/exec" advantage of having shell builtins in the first place,  
 > right?

My understanding is that the driving force is code sharing, not
performance.  If we are really concerned about the performance of the
`sum' or `sleep' commands, something more fundamental is amiss.

-- 
meem