On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 10:23:57AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > turn these > > > > test "$(cat file1)" = "that"' > > > > checks into > > > > echo that >expect && > > test_cmp expect file1 > > > > because 'test_cmp' on Windows first compares the two files in shell > > and runs 'diff' only when there is a difference to report. > > Needs measuring. Is two extra file I/Os that inexpensive? Compared to subshells and external processes, yes. I run this on Linux: --- >8 --- #!/bin/sh test_description='test' . ./lib-bash.sh test_expect_success 'test' ' echo "master updated" >file1 && echo "original:" && time for i in $(seq 1000) do test "$(cat file1)" = "master updated" done && echo "using test_cmp:" && time for i in $(seq 1000) do echo "master updated" >expect && test_cmp expect file1 done && echo "using mingw_test_cmp:" && time for i in $(seq 1000) do echo "master updated" >expect && mingw_test_cmp expect file1 done ' test_done --- >8 --- And it produced: original: real 0m1.888s user 0m1.491s sys 0m0.532s using test_cmp: real 0m1.233s user 0m0.877s sys 0m0.432s using mingw_test_cmp: real 0m0.344s user 0m0.298s sys 0m0.026s ok 1 - test It's faster even on Linux, so it should be much faster on Windows, where both external commands and subshells have much higher overhead. However, there are only about 50 "$(cat ...)" in t7610 that can be eliminated this way, which is not all that much compared to the several thousand processes shown in the cover letter... Anyway, there is still the better developer experience in case of one of these checks were to fail without '-x' tracing... :)
