> On Mar 7, 2020, at 7:33 PM, Peng Yu wrote:
>
> Could you show me how you do the profiling for this specific case?
> Based on what proof that you can conclude that it is not the `[[`
> performance problem?
That's kind of a weird framing. The burden of proof is on *you* to
prove your assertion t
My OS is Mac OS X. I don't have perf. Is it only on linux? Could you
show me the output of your perf?
On 3/7/20, Chris Down wrote:
> Peng Yu writes:
>>Could you show me how you do the profiling for this specific case?
>>Based on what proof that you can conclude that it is not the `[[`
>>performan
Peng Yu writes:
Could you show me how you do the profiling for this specific case?
Based on what proof that you can conclude that it is not the `[[`
performance problem?
Like I said, `perf` is perfectly adequate.
bash -c 'x=$(printf "%.sx" {1..1000}); perf record -g -p $$ & sleep 2;
t
Could you show me how you do the profiling for this specific case?
Based on what proof that you can conclude that it is not the `[[`
performance problem?
On 3/7/20, Chris Down wrote:
> Peng Yu writes:
>>[[ $x ]] just tests whether the variable $x is of length 0 or not. So
>>its performance should
Peng Yu writes:
[[ $x ]] just tests whether the variable $x is of length 0 or not. So
its performance should not depend on how long the variable is.
Who said it has anything to do with the [[ builtin's performance? A shell does
a lot more than just running one command.
For this and the last