Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dan Nicholson wrote: >> >>> A while back I sanitized the bootscripts for POSIX sh compatibility, and >>> I think DJ has been maintaining that goal. I think it's a nice (and >>> obtainable) goal to target since having sh != bash can save on bloat. >> Save on bloat? For what? My copy of bash is 500K. dash is about 80K. > > Right, bash is 4 times the size of dash. That adds up when you're forking the > shell a hundred times or whatever during boot.
Come on Dan. You know better than that. When you fork a program, the code segment is not duplicated, but only any necessary data. For that, there would be no significant difference between bash and dash. > The last time I tested, it shaved like 4 seconds off boot using dash instead > of bash. > > http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2008-February/034192.html > I use bash all the time and I wouldn't consider using a minimal posix shell > for my login shell. For any non-trivial script, I use bash. However, for a > generic shell script, I don't know why you couldn't make it posix compliant. > That allows people to have flexibility without much loss. The bootscripts are > pretty simple. As you mention, bootscripts are pretty simple and in no way are a stress test. Four seconds doesn't seem very significant to me. It's not enough to notice unless you are doing a timing test. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
