Subject: Re: [justin@bbnow.net: Re: bash]
To: None <netbsd-users@netbsd.org>
From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 03/28/2001 05:27:25
Simon Burge <simonb@wasabisystems.com> writes:
>Hmm, little...
>
> thoreau:~ 216> size ksh93-alpha /bin/*sh
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 1198476 47696 48316 1294488 13c098 ksh93-alpha
> 533316 25328 39868 598512 921f0 /bin/csh
> 601388 25232 26492 653112 9f738 /bin/ksh
> 641004 31248 23636 695888 a9e50 /bin/sh
> 763068 45048 1256156 2064272 1f7f90 /bin/tcsh
>
>All statically linked. Little isn't a work that springs to mind!
Hehe... yeah but runtime-size after starting is about equivalent
to bash2 and it stays at that size (while bash continues to grow,
gobbling in heap like mad, just try to complete in a larger
directory.) Also one should consider that compared to the other
shells, ksh93 is a fully featured scripting language with much of
the (mostly useful) cruft of things like tcl or perl. On i386 in
interactive use, ksh93 stays about at 750K VSS/850K RSS, which,
while considerably larger than the bundled pdksh, is still less
than tcsh or bash runtime size (and most of it is text -- read
shared.)
Wasn't there someone on this list who lectured about the evils
of comparing on-disk binary sizes? :)
mkb