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

[Casper.Dik at sun.com]

>
> > >>> 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.

And if you start them as individual commands, there's no fork/exec
you can save.  If you run ksh93, then you save the fork/exec.

Casper