From: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>
To: bug-gnulib@gnu.org
Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: gnulib-tool.py speedup
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:50:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5635240.fmqBMdrEoA@nimes> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb9e18cd-1bd7-4ff5-a57e-03aa320025bb@gmail.com>
On Sonntag, 21. April 2024 01:01:01 CEST Collin Funk wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> On 4/20/24 3:50 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > On Linux: On Cygwin 2.9.0:
> >
> > in create-tests: time ./test-all.sh in create-tests: time ./test-all.sh
> > sh: 1225 sec sh: 27406 sec
> > py: 155 sec py: 2400 sec
> > => about 8 times faster => more than 11 times faster
>
> What shell did you use for this test?
On Linux: dash. On Cygwin: bash
> Would other shells even make a difference?
You just have to replace the first line of gnulib-tool.sh:
#!/bin/sh -> #!/bin/bash
What I measure (with "GNULIB_TOOL_IMPL=sh time ./test-create-testdir-1.sh") is:
dash 22 sec
bash 20 sec
I think that 'dash' is generally somewhat faster than 'bash'. However,
gnulib-tool uses special bash syntax for appending to a list and for the
module caching; this probably makes it faster with 'bash' than with 'dash',
What matters most, in the comparison shell vs. Python, IMO, is the string
processing [1].
Bruno
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-03/msg00160.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-20 23:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-20 0:22 beta-tester call draft Bruno Haible
2024-04-20 0:39 ` Bruno Haible
2024-04-20 0:56 ` Collin Funk
2024-04-20 1:49 ` Bruno Haible
2024-04-20 4:27 ` Paul Eggert
2024-04-20 22:31 ` gnulib-tool: In sh+py mode, don't fail because of dangling symlinks Bruno Haible
2024-04-20 22:46 ` beta-tester call draft Bruno Haible
2024-04-20 9:38 ` Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
2024-04-20 22:50 ` gnulib-tool.py speedup Bruno Haible
2024-04-20 23:01 ` Collin Funk
2024-04-20 23:50 ` Bruno Haible [this message]
2024-04-21 0:53 ` Collin Funk
2024-04-20 10:21 ` beta-tester call draft Pádraig Brady
2024-04-20 13:05 ` Bernhard Voelker
2024-04-20 22:54 ` Bruno Haible
2024-04-20 22:57 ` Paul Eggert
2024-04-20 23:14 ` Bruno Haible
2024-04-21 10:53 ` Bernhard Voelker
2024-04-21 14:50 ` future Python evolution Bruno Haible
2024-04-21 15:14 ` Paul Eggert
2024-04-21 22:38 ` Bruno Haible
2024-04-22 7:05 ` Paul Eggert
2024-04-21 15:26 ` Bernhard Voelker
2024-04-28 14:14 ` Bernhard Voelker
2024-04-21 15:15 ` beta-tester call draft Janneke Nieuwenhuizen
2024-04-21 16:07 ` full-source bootstrap and Python Bruno Haible
2024-04-22 7:29 ` Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
2024-04-22 10:07 ` Bruno Haible
2024-04-22 10:06 ` Janneke Nieuwenhuizen
2024-04-22 11:24 ` Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
2024-04-22 15:48 ` Bruno Haible
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5635240.fmqBMdrEoA@nimes \
--to=bruno@clisp.org \
--cc=bug-gnulib@gnu.org \
--cc=collin.funk1@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).