Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #14490
| From | Bize Ma <binaryzebra@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | gnu.bash.bug |
| Subject | Re: Unexpected delay in using arguments. |
| Date | 2018-08-14 23:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.5123.1534302029.1292.bug-bash@gnu.org> (permalink) |
| References | <CAFra36j=UuqHv2Spp26ebAW0dRW+KsgNS21hZJrwuku9QUayWw@mail.gmail.com> <e8f9e834-d58e-6073-45c5-a9cf28212d60@case.edu> |
2018-08-14 11:25 GMT-04:00 Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu>: > On 8/12/18 3:16 AM, Bize Ma wrote: > > Try this script: > (...) > Which is a thousand times slower. > > If you build a profiling version of bash, you'll find that about 75% of > that time is spent copying the list of arguments around I just don't see why there is any need to copy arguments. Most other shells seem that they don't do that. > , since you have > to save and restore it each time you call f1. There is no need to "copy", that just waste additional memory. Just point to a new list of arguments (it is a change of only a memory pointer). Release the memory when the argument list is not being used any more. > > Bash 5 is even worse, try: > > Bash-5.0-alpha is not a released version, so it uses the debugging malloc. > If you profile that, you'll find that about 99% of the time is spent > marking allocations as active and free in the table the bash malloc uses > to keep track of active memory. > Yes, tests with "--without-bash-malloc" and "RELSTATUS=release" were done after I posted the OP. Yes, version 5.0 is not corrected, and looks that it is not "worse". Sorry for the misrepresentation.
Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Unexpected delay in using arguments. Bize Ma <binaryzebra@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 23:00 -0400
csiph-web