[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Performance issues using GAWK 3.1.6 ->from Win 2008 t

From: arnold
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Performance issues using GAWK 3.1.6 ->from Win 2008 to Win 2016
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 02:25:51 -0600
User-agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10


Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> Are you sure it isn't a Gawk problem?  Did you look at the gprof
> profile I posted, and if so, does everything there look as expected?

I did look at it, and it looked fine. I apologize for not responding
to the group about that.  I have many other things going on. :-(

> Because it could be that these scripts, no matter how inefficient and
> badly written, expose some issue with Gawk, which somehow rears its
> ugly head on Windows 10.  Until we have eliminated that possibility, I
> don't see how we can decide this is off-topic here.

What's clear is:

1. The scripts are poorly written. They should be fixed no matter what.

2. Haritha and company could use some external help in doing that
   (consultant, Ed, whatever, but inappropriate to the list).

3. There is *some* difference between the environments, given the
   change in runtimes between the same gawk binary (3.1.6) on
   both systems.  Trying to isolate that is also inappropriate to
   the list.

>From everything I've seen so far, I see no indication of any
problem in gawk itself.

> I do agree that the continuing discussion of how to improve the
> scripts may have crossed the line of being on-topic here.  But that
> wasn't what I was asking about.  The only issue that still bothers me
> is the sudden performance regression when the scripts were used on
> another version of the same OS.  We don't have any explanation for
> that, and in the experiment I conducted (see my report yesterday,
> which surprisingly didn't get any responses) I couldn't reproduce the
> regression.  Does the lack of responses to that experiment mean we
> consider the regression to be some fluke in the OP's environment
> unworthy of our attention?  If so, we can indeed stop talking about
> the problem here.

>From my point of view, it looks like "some fluke in the OP's environment"
and thus need not be discussed here.

I'm NOT saying "let's leave the user out in the cold". I'm simply
asking that discussion and further attempts to help be done



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]