| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
| X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS |
| X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
| Message-ID: | <4A9FE555.6020109@gmail.com> |
| Date: | Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:48:37 +0100 |
| From: | Dave Korn <dave DOT korn DOT cygwin AT googlemail DOT com> |
| User-Agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Subject: | Re: Simple bash script is slow to execute - appears to be time spent starting commands like ls |
| References: | <E1MjDsO-0004DK-9a AT elasmtp-masked DOT atl DOT sa DOT earthlink DOT net> |
| In-Reply-To: | <E1MjDsO-0004DK-9a@elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net> |
| Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
| List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
| List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
| List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
| Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
| Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
David Tazartes wrote:
> So given that, I wonder if our intrepid Cygwin maintainers could be
> convinced to write a kind of compiled bridge that allows for any command in
> /bin to also be run in-process with bash.exe using static linking. I can
> imagine all kinds of weird things one would have to worry about, like piping
> data between processes, forks, etc, but it would conceivably make Cygwin
> 100x faster on Windows. (Perhaps *any* /bin command is too stringent a
> requirement - but the 100 most common ones would be a good start.) I'll
> freely admit that I don't have the time, knowledge or inclination to
> contribute such a thing, but does anyone else have any interest in doing so?
It sounds like you're thinking of some kind of combination version of bash
with busybox built in?
I don't think it's ever going to be possible to run one process inside
another, they'd stomp all over each others file descriptors and stuff, but
bash-with-busybox-builtin would be able to do a lot of work by
forking-without-execing, which might be a neat optimisation.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |