From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:02:29 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/5] gettext: fix bug in git-sh-i18n's eval_gettext() by using envsubst(1)
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=s+UQ3isK9eEKLM7k=BvxV7cTKdD6Bi=ipG0yS@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CD94449.1040201@viscovery.net>

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 13:53, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
> Am 11/9/2010 13:38, schrieb Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason:
>> I understood your previous comments to mean that the invocation time
>> of git-* on one hand and cat(1) on the other hand had to do with how
>> many DLL's the former needed.
>
> I was only guessing; I can't explain the timing difference.
>
>> Since git-sh-i18n--envsubst needs the same DLL's (i.e. the libc) as
>> cat(1) and *nothing else* it should be as fast as cat(1) and not as
>> slow as git-*(1) once I fix that unfortunate Makefile bug, right?
>
> Wrong. Please accept it as a fact (and I'll forgive your ignorance ;) I
> would like to spend the time explaining the reasons only if you want to
> compile git on Windows yourself.

I'd usually check out things like these myself in a virtual machine,
but in this case I'd have to fork over a significant amount of cash
just to get a test environment on a system I'm not going to use.

I'd have the same issue if someone pointed out an issue with the
series on e.g. AIX, HP/UX etc.

Anyway, I don't see any sensible reason for why a Unix utility like
cat(1) would be fast but a utility of ours that does similar things /
links to the same libraries (and no more) wouldn't be.