UsrMove feature (was Re: FESCo meeting minutes for 2011-10-24)

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Oct 25 19:26:19 UTC 2011


On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 12:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 20:39 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > 2011/10/25 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>:
> > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 08:33:28PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > >> 2011/10/25 Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>:
> > >> > Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4 at gmail.com> said:
> > >> >> I created feature page
> > >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18MorePortableInterpreters
> > >> >
> > >> > I strongly object to this "feature".  /bin/sh is a Unix standard back to
> > >> > IIRC around 7th Edition, and there is NO good reason to break it.  The
> > >> > "#!/usr/bin/env foo" suggested replacement has always been a hack to
> > >> > work around broken systems, not something suggested for all scripts.
> > >>
> > >> What is wrong with
> > >> #!/usr/bin/env interpreter
> > >> from technical POV?
> > >
> > > This is what's wrong:
> > >
> > >  $ cat > sh.sh
> > >  #!/bin/sh
> > >  $ cat > env.sh
> > >  #!/usr/bin/env sh
> > >  $ chmod +x sh.sh env.sh
> > >  $ time for i in $(seq 1000); do ./sh.sh; done
> > >
> > >  real            0m2.737s
> > >  user            0m0.750s
> > >  sys             0m1.519s
> > >  $ time for i in $(seq 1000); do ./env.sh; done
> > >
> > >  real            0m3.677s
> > >  user            0m1.013s
> > >  sys             0m2.296s
> > >
> > 
> > Yeah, it is noticeably slower - about 0,00094s.
> 
> Uh. ~2.7secs vs. ~3.7 secs is nearly one entire second, not one tiny
> tiny fraction of a second, isn't it?

Oh. Duh. I missed the 1,000 attempts. =)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net



More information about the devel mailing list