Bug#65458: marked as done (sed: regexp performance woeful)
Your message dated Mon, 19 May 2008 13:01:40 +0000
with message-id <20080519130140.GA20396@scru.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#65458: (no subject)
has caused the Debian Bug report #65458,
regarding sed: regexp performance woeful
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
65458: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=65458
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- 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 Well, it seems that sed is no longer maintained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 ---
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 02:11:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> fixed in glibc upstream, see also bug 475474
Please reopen if this is incorrect.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: