Re: Another shell scripting question
martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> said on Fri, 21 May 2004 01:39:55 +0200:
>
> --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> also sprach Martin McCormick <martin@dc.cis.okstate.edu> [2004.05.20.2126 +=
> 0200]:
> > Is it just more efficient in resources to use plain #! /bin/sh
> > rather than bash?
>
> surely not. /bin/sh is generally linked to bash (... by default,
> that is).
That's a rather Linux centric answer (and doesn't even apply to
busybox like installations where /bin/sh is minimally posix-compliant).
It's also possibly wrong, because when in sh mode (ie, invoked with $0
of "sh"), bash would disable certain features that could well lead to
a faster executing code (probably not by much, if anything).
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
hey Beavis, we're segfaulting, heh heh heh, I know, Butthead, so let's
SIGBUS from inside the handler, heh heh heh --Stephen J. Turnbull
Reply to: