Moving on

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Jun 16 09:20:57 PDT 2001


On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 10:51:58AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On Saturday 16 June 2001  0:54, Jesse Tie Ten Quee wrote:
> > Really? i could write a backend in C or C++ and it would *never* touch a
> > shell.
> 
> Why wouldn't you? The only reason would be increased speed. But it is not 
> necessary, because you don't need it. The difference will be a fraction of a 
> second, and most of the time the computer will be compiling, so this is not 
> an issue.

A situation that probaly won't apply ever, static bash is big. a static
backend+profile(s) are probaly as big as a 2MB static bash binary.
Backend is relatively dumb and therefore can be small I'd think. Would
fit better on small media (floppy disk). Then again, how one would run a
configure script without bash beats me too, so like I said, this is a
situation that most likely won't ever apply.

On the other hand, if the C program doens't run a shell to run make, but
have it run make directly, it would mean one less process running (and
not running a 2 MB bash can be a nice saving on a system with limited
ram). Again, if a 2 mb bash binary slows down your system a lot you dont
have a great fast system anyways, so you won't notice the difference
really. It still has to go compiling which requires far more then a bash
process (then again, static gcc is 500 KB or so).



-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message



More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list