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

[Roland Mainz]

Peter Memishian wrote:
>  > >>> 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.

"performace" is important, too. That's why we added the whole
infratructure for compiled shell script (including "shcomp" and
"shbinexec"). We just can't use it until a sufficient amount of time has
passed to make sure that all build machines have the matching
"shbinexec" kernel module (that would require a "flag day" ... in theory
it could be done ASAP but that would IMO just cause unneccesary pain for
the developers and admins (at least I would prefer to wait until at
least B116)).

----

Bye,
Roland

-- 
  __ .  . __
 (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org
  \__\/\/__/  MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
  /O /==\ O\  TEL +49 641 3992797
 (;O/ \/ \O;)