GNU bug report logs - #76103
[PATCH] New function 'process-output'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Ramirez <alvaro <at> xenodium.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: acorallo <at> gnu.org, 76103 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, juri <at> linkov.net
Subject: bug#76103: [PATCH] New function 'process-output'
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 13:21:57 -0600

Alvaro Ramirez <alvaro <at> xenodium.com> writes:

> Thanks Eli.
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure a 2.5 boost in performance
>
> (let ((before (benchmark-run 1000
>                 (shell-command-to-string "seq 200")))
>       (after (benchmark-run 1000
>                (process-output "seq" "200"))))
>   (/ (car before)
>      (car after))) => 3.27
>
> Roughly a 3.27 gain, or should I calculate differently?

I would benchmark this against `process-lines` instead, because it
doesn't spawn a shell.  On this macOS machine, I get 1.15 for that
benchmark.

>> (on which platform, btw?) justifies yet another API.
>
> macOS. Need to grab a hold of a linux box to get equivalent
> figure.

AFAIU, the body of the proposed `process-output` could be reduced to

    (string-join (process-lines cmd) "\n")

This makes me doubt if it's worth adding this new API.

To find arguments that would justify the addition, I'd take a look at
emacs.git to see which code we have that it would simplify.  I'd also
take a look at packages on GNU ELPA, NonGNU ELPA, and MELPA, to find
even more supporting evidence.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.