[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bash hash bug
From: |
Chet Ramey |
Subject: |
Re: bash hash bug |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:15:11 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025) |
Bob Proulx wrote:
>> Chet Ramey wrote:
>>> When this option is on, bash has to check the hashed filename for
>>> each hash lookup. This essentially causes the hash entry to be
>>> deleted and re-added each time, which resets the number of hits to 1.
>>> (It could probably be done without the deletion and re-addition; I
>>> should look at that.)
I looked, and it can. So performance will improve slightly, since there
doesn't need to be a redundant path search, and the `hit count', which is
just a coarse estimate of hashing effectiveness, will be more meaningful.
It was a bug, or at least a case of code no longer working as originally
intended.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
Live Strong. No day but today.
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
- Re: bash hash question (bug? misunderstanding?), (continued)
- Re: bash hash question (bug? misunderstanding?), Chet Ramey, 2006/11/19
- Re: bash hash bug, Linda Walsh, 2006/11/19
- Re: bash hash bug, Eric Blake, 2006/11/19
- Re: bash hash bug, Eric Blake, 2006/11/19
- Re: bash hash bug, Linda Walsh, 2006/11/20
- Re: bash hash bug, Chet Ramey, 2006/11/20
- Re: bash hash bug, Linda Walsh, 2006/11/20
- Re: bash hash bug, Chet Ramey, 2006/11/20
- Re: bash hash bug, Linda Walsh, 2006/11/20
- Re: bash hash bug, Bob Proulx, 2006/11/20
- Re: bash hash bug,
Chet Ramey <=
- Re: bash hash bug, Eric Blake, 2006/11/24