Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:26:47 -0500 From: Ryan Younce <ryan@manunkind.org> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "unbuffered" ? Message-ID: <20001202152647.A40048@cheshire.manunkind.org> In-Reply-To: <p04330106b64f0472caa4@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:08:11PM -0500 References: <20001202224250.L377@welearn.com.au> <p04330106b64f0472caa4@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>: > But that's if the output is going directly to a terminal. > Consider: > ./myprog | more > > The "myprog" process has no way of knowing that the output is > really going to some terminal, so that process will feel free > to buffer output for performance reasons. This usually is > the right thing to do when output is going thru a pipe to > another process, but in the above case this decision might > not be good. Actualy, for what it's worth in this thread, myprog can determine whether or not output is going to a termianl by calling isatty() on STDOUT_FILENO. This is how ls(1), for instance, determines whether to use single-column or multi-column output (ls will print multi-column if output is to a terminal and single-column if it is to a file, but command-line options can change this behavior, of course). -- Ryan "Cheshire" Younce | ryan@manunkind.org | http://www.manunkind.org/~ryan "The only intuitive interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned." -- Bruce Ediger, in comp.os.linux.misc, on X interfaces To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001202152647.A40048>