3 Jun
2009
3 Jun
'09
7:09 p.m.
Hi,
Many of my Textmate commands are slow and take up to 15 seconds. My
problem seems to be the same than the one described in this thread:
http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/2006-January/007647.html. The top
command shows that the bash seems to be taking up all available CPU
cycles while TextMate is loading. This is really annoying, since this
happens with even very basic bundle commands like bolding in LaTeX,
which renders the commands in LaTeX bundle virtually unusable.
I tried the solution provided in this post:
http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/2006-January/007705.html. However,
I don't have fink or any other suspicious lines in my .bash_profile,
.bash_login or .profile files. Does anyone have any idea on what might
possibly cause the problem?
Regards,
Juho
--
Juho Makkonen
+358 41 5022 683
3 Jun
3 Jun
7:34 p.m.
On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Juho Makkonen wrote:
Hi,
Many of my Textmate commands are slow and take up to 15 seconds. My
problem seems to be the same than the one described in this thread:
http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/2006-January/007647.html. The top
command shows that the bash seems to be taking up all available CPU
cycles while TextMate is loading. This is really annoying, since this
happens with even very basic bundle commands like bolding in LaTeX,
which renders the commands in LaTeX bundle virtually unusable.
I tried the solution provided in this post:
http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/2006-January/007705.html.
However,
I don't have fink or any other suspicious lines in my .bash_profile,
.bash_login or .profile files. Does anyone have any idea on what might
possibly cause the problem?
Any chance you could paste your .bash_profile / .profile ?
8:07 p.m.
Alex Ross wrote:
On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Juho Makkonen wrote:
Sure. Actually neither of those files contains anything at the moment,
but /etc/profile contains these lines (they are there by default after
the installation, i believe):
# System-wide .profile for sh(1)
if [ -x /usr/libexec/path_helper ]; then
eval `/usr/libexec/path_helper -s`
fi
if [ "${BASH-no}" != "no" ]; then
[ -r /etc/bashrc ] && . /etc/bashrc
fi
-juho
--
Juho Makkonen
+358 41 5022 683
Hi,
Many of my Textmate commands are slow and take up to 15 seconds. My
problem seems to be the same than the one described in this thread:
http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/2006-January/007647.html. The top
command shows that the bash seems to be taking up all available CPU
cycles while TextMate is loading. This is really annoying, since this
happens with even very basic bundle commands like bolding in LaTeX,
which renders the commands in LaTeX bundle virtually unusable.
I tried the solution provided in this post:
http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/2006-January/007705.html.
However,
I don't have fink or any other suspicious lines in my .bash_profile,
.bash_login or .profile files. Does anyone have any idea on what might
possibly cause the problem?
Any chance you could paste your .bash_profile / .profile ?
8:05 a.m.
Allan Odgaard wrote:
On 3 Jun 2009, at 22:07, Juho Makkonen wrote:
This solved the problem, thanks! What is the point in those lines
anyway, does commenting them cause any problems?
-juho
--
Juho Makkonen
+358 41 5022 683
[...]
if [ -x /usr/libexec/path_helper ]; then
eval `/usr/libexec/path_helper -s`
fi
With a long PATH this one can take a _loooong_ time to execute (I
filed a performance bug against it), try disable/comment it.
8:59 a.m.
On 04.06.2009, at 10:05, Juho Makkonen wrote:
Allan Odgaard wrote:
Those lines add the components defined in /etc/paths and /etc/paths.d/
* to your PATH, making executables there available to your shell
processes.
The downside of disabling them is that for executables found in one of
those directories you need to either add their component to PATH
manually or type their full path when you want to run them.
FWIW, I’ve applied the patch at http://gist.github.com/123525 to my
system, which takes care of the slowdowns for me. Of course you should
backup the path_helper script beforehand, patching system scripts is
generally not a good idea, use at your own risk and so on.
Martin
On 3 Jun 2009, at 22:07, Juho Makkonen wrote:
This solved the problem, thanks! What is the point in those lines
anyway, does commenting them cause any problems? [...]
if [ -x /usr/libexec/path_helper ]; then
eval `/usr/libexec/path_helper -s`
fi
With a long PATH this one can take a _loooong_ time to execute (I
filed a performance bug against it), try disable/comment it.
5:27 p.m.
FWIW, I’ve applied the patch at
http://gist.github.com/123525 to my
system, which takes care of the slowdowns for me. Of course you should
backup the path_helper script beforehand, patching system scripts is
generally not a good idea, use at your own risk and so on.
Interesting. I didn't know that one. But why do I receive an egrep not
found each time I start a bash after having applied this patch?
enas
5:51 p.m.
On 04.06.2009, at 19:27, enas wrote:
I’d guess that your PATH isn’t set up correctly :-D
egrep(1) should be in `/usr/bin', so you should replace the egrep call
with `/usr/bin/egrep' (without the quotes).
(I thought /usr/bin was part of the default PATH bash defines on
startup when it’s empty…)
Martin
FWIW, I’ve
applied the patch at http://gist.github.com/123525 to my
system, which takes care of the slowdowns for me. Of course you
should
backup the path_helper script beforehand, patching system scripts is
generally not a good idea, use at your own risk and so on.
Interesting. I didn't know that one. But why do I receive an egrep not
found each time I start a bash after having applied this patch?
7:19 p.m.
On 4 Jun 2009, at 18:51, Martin Kühl wrote:
On 04.06.2009, at 19:27, enas wrote:
I’d guess that your PATH isn’t set up correctly :-D
Surely :)
FWIW,
I’ve applied the patch at http://gist.github.com/123525 to my
system, which takes care of the slowdowns for me. Of course you
should
backup the path_helper script beforehand, patching system scripts is
generally not a good idea, use at your own risk and so on.
Interesting. I didn't know that one. But why do I receive an egrep
not
found each time I start a bash after having applied this patch? (I thought /usr/bin was part of the default PATH bash
defines on
startup when it’s empty…)
I thought too, that's why I find it strange that this patch doesn't
work on my system, which is by any means standard (and I had already
come upon this problem), while it works for you (at the author of the
patch too I guess). Anyway, that's out of the scope of this discussion
(and I did replace egrep by /usr/bin/egrep); I just find it annoying
not to understand why things don't work as I thought they should.
enas
7:39 p.m.
On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Allan Odgaard wrote:
On 3 Jun 2009, at 22:07, Juho Makkonen wrote:
Where is this code, in which bundle?
--
Scott * If you contact me off list replace talklists@ with scott@ *
[...]
if [ -x /usr/libexec/path_helper ]; then
eval `/usr/libexec/path_helper -s`
fi
With a long PATH this one can take a _loooong_ time to execute (I
filed a performance bug against it), try disable/comment it. 
24 Jun
24 Jun
9:45 a.m.
On 4 Jun 2009, at 21:39, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Allan Odgaard wrote:
This is in /etc/profile — a standard system file.
On 3 Jun 2009, at 22:07, Juho Makkonen wrote:
Where is this code, in which bundle? [...]
if [ -x /usr/libexec/path_helper ]; then
eval `/usr/libexec/path_helper -s`
fi
With a long PATH this one can take a _loooong_ time to execute (I
filed a performance bug against it), try disable/comment it. 
9 Jul
9 Jul
3:56 p.m.
This seems to be a principle problem with TextMate. Maybe it should
not start a new bash process for every command but keep one running in
the background and reuse it!? To prevent interferences, there could
also be one process per bundle.
Best regards
Daniel
Am 24.06.2009 um 11:45 schrieb Allan Odgaard:
On 4 Jun 2009, at 21:39, Scott Haneda wrote:
On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Allan Odgaard
wrote:
This is in /etc/profile — a standard system file.
_______________________________________________
textmate mailing list
textmate(a)lists.macromates.com
http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
On 3 Jun 2009, at 22:07, Juho Makkonen wrote:
Where is this code, in which bundle? [...]
if [ -x /usr/libexec/path_helper ]; then
eval `/usr/libexec/path_helper -s`
fi
With a long PATH this one can take a _loooong_ time to execute (I
filed a performance bug against it), try disable/comment it.
6:48 p.m.
On 9 Jul 2009, at 17:56, Daniel Sadilek wrote:
This seems to be a principle problem with TextMate.
Maybe it should
not start a new bash process for every command but keep one running in
the background and reuse it!? To prevent interferences, there could
also be one process per bundle.
We setup stdin/out and the environment before we launch the
interpreter (which is different for each invocation), and we use the
return code from the interpreter, changing to a long-living
interpreter would be rather problematic/challenging (and one command
could easily pollute the environment).
This is clearly an OS problem that can easily be addressed either by
the user or Apple.
4259
days inactive
4295
days old
12 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Alex Ross -
Allan Odgaard -
Daniel Sadilek -
enas -
Juho Makkonen -
Martin Kühl -
Scott Haneda