[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#65458: marked as done (sed: regexp performance woeful)



Your message dated Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:15:27 +0300
with message-id <20070915211527.GA2796@norsu.vuoristo.local>
and subject line Should be fixed now
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: sed
Version: 3.02-5
Severity: wishlist

Regexp performance is woeful:

sed '/^$/d'
takes 5 seconds while
mawk '!/^$/ { print; }
takes only one.  Both are running on the Packages file for potato's main
component.

This is already known, in fact it's listed in the BUGS file.

So why am I reporting this? Well, it seems that sed is no longer maintained
upstream as the last release was made 2 years ago.  So I'd like to see
someone in the GNU project pick this one up again as it's such an important
program, and we desparately need to improve the regexp performance so that at
least it can outperform gawk if not mawk :)

So could you please contact the current upstream maintainer so that the
status of his maintainership can be clarified? Perhaps you can even start
hacking it :)

-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Kernel Version: Linux gondor 2.2.12 #2 Sat Sep 18 12:11:40 EST 1999 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages sed depends on:
ii  libc6          2.1.3-10       GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This slowness should be fixed already in etch (and maybe even sarge).
Please reopen if you can still reproduce it in current version.


--- End Message ---

Reply to: