From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mod.civil.su.OZ.AU ([129.78.142.6]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2764>; Tue, 13 Apr 1993 17:23:06 -0400 Received: by mod.civil.su.oz.au id <28713>; Wed, 14 Apr 1993 07:22:53 +1000 From: John (Most modern computers would break if you stood on them) Mackin Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 17:13:47 -0400 To: Chris Siebenmann cc: The rc Mailing List Subject: Re: Speed of rc In-Reply-To: <93Apr13.152625edt.2752@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu> Message-ID: <199304140713.7817.rc.bagop@civil.su.oz.au> X-Face: 39seV7n\`#asqOFdx#oj/Uz*lseO_1n9n7rQS;~ve\e`&Z},nU1+>0X^>mg&M.^X$[ez>{F k5[Ah<7xBWF-@-ru?& @4K4-b`ydd^`(n%Z{ Chris, Fascinating! I want to work out what is going on here. The first question, and I am really in little doubt as to the answer, is: was that rc-1.4? You didn't say, and I know some earlier versions didn't do the redundant stat() call that appears to be at the bottom of the extra system time I am seeing. Note that you, like me, see substantially larger user times with sh than with rc; the difference was that I saw larger system times with rc than with sh, whereas in your tests they are on a par. Given that you were using 1.4, I'd say the next logical step (and this is just a suggestion, feel free to make your own if you don't like this one) is I'll give you my rc-1.4 binary one way or another (I can put it up for anon ftp here, probably best) and you can test that binary under the same conditions as the others. Let me know what you think. Puzzled, but OK, John.