Re: forked before bash subshell

[L. A. Walsh]

Ya know, if you are looking for optimization opportunities, using
a temporary file to communicate between processes rather than
using an actual pipe, is definitely a performance hit --
ESPECIALLY on Cygwin, where you can't even do a "stat" call on
a file without actually opening the file.

I seem to remember a few months back mentioning this inefficiency and
how in some environments, using a tmp file (say booting from a read-only
media, and having no writable, temporary, storage) might not just be
slow, but fail to work.  Some were sure a startup script I was working
on at the time, was running into problems with TMP not being writable
on linux.

So in addition to fixing a performance issue on Cygwin, using pipes
for communication could actually make bash work in more places where it
might not otherwise.

I didn't get the impression that you were willing to look for issues
to improve bash's performance or improve bash's robustness at that time.

Just thought I'd refresh your memory, if you were open to looking at
areas where algorithmic improvement would be likely to result in
increased performance and robustness...

:-)
Linda


Chet Ramey wrote:
> It's not a bug; it's an opportunity for optimization. It's like this
> because it hasn't come up as a performance problem.  I'll take a look
> at it.  There are probably several opportunities like this.
>
> Chet
>
>