On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:03:27 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tomi. > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:58:00 +0200, Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> wrote: > > Hi Dmitry. [ ... ] > > > > The (posix) shell command language defines 'Arithmetic Expansion' in > > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/chap2.html#tag_001_006_004 > > > > I.e. using format $(( expression )) makes shell doing the arithetic itself > > instead of forking a process (or two!) to do so. > > > > I though expr was a builtin. Now I agree that it is better to replace > it with $(()), even though I still prefer the expr syntax. Actually, I thought also that expr was a builtin. That makes the resolution 'forks subshell to execute builtin expr' below wrong. If it were a builtin then bash would also fork only once (to get details right). I re-tested with zsh using 'builtin pwd' and '/bin/pwd' instead of 'expr' -- only one fork in each case. So, those who examined my tests with deep interest also note this correction. > > Normally in this case it is not so big deal (and still it isn't, but...) > > In this particular case the shell wrapper counting notmuch launches and > > exec'ing it the wrapper could do this without fork(2)ing a single time > > (i.e. keep the process count unchanged compared to execing notmuch > > directly) > > > > Anyway, many opinions; as far as it works I'm fine with it :) > > > > Now that you feel relaxed, check the results of some further > > experimentation ;) : > > > > excerpt from man strace: > > > > -ff If the -o filename option is in effect, each processes > > trace is written to filename.pid where pid is the > > numeric process id of each process. > > > > Executing rm -f forked.*; strace -ff -o forked bash -c 'echo $(( 5 + 5 ))' > > > > will output '10' and create just one 'forked.<pid>' file > > > > Executing rm -f forked.*; strace -ff -o forked bash -c 'echo $(expr 5 + 5)' > > > > output 10 as expected, but there is now *3* forked.<pid> files ! > > > > bash does not optmize; it forks subshell to execute $(...) and then > > there just works as usual (forks subshell to execute builtin expr)) > > > > Executing rm -f forked.*; strace -ff -o forked bash -c 'echo $(exec expr 5 + 5)' > > > > (the added 'exec' takes off one fork -- just 2 forked.<pid> files appear). > > > > I did the same tests using dash, ksh & zsh on linux system, and every one > > of these managed to optimize one fork out in the above 3 fork case. > > > > Thanks for details. > > Regards, > Dmitry > > > > > Tomi Tomi