From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 21 05:21:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF5E16A4CF for ; Sat, 21 May 2005 05:21:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B7043D69 for ; Sat, 21 May 2005 05:21:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4L5K4dk097584; Fri, 20 May 2005 23:20:04 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 23:20:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20050520.232019.24855681.imp@bsdimp.com> To: arundel@h3c.de From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20050521015105.GA9063@skatecity> References: <20050520224726.GA7951@skatecity> <20050520230845.GC51092@dan.emsphone.com> <20050521015105.GA9063@skatecity> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Looking for ANSI/VT100 code replacement. X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 05:21:17 -0000 In message: <20050521015105.GA9063@skatecity> alexander writes: : On Fri May 20 05, Dan Nelson wrote: : > : > How often are you doing this? I wrote a quick microbenchmark and my : > pIII-900 box can do 80000 writes() per second of "\e[5D\e[Kabcde". I : > don't think that's your bottleneck. If it is, the usual solution is to : > not do a write on every iteration. You've got a (maximum) 100hz screen : > refresh rate anyhow, so doing more than 100 updates per second won't do : > you any good. Even 10 is probably more than you need. : > : > -- : > Dan Nelson : > dnelson@allantgroup.com : : Ohh...sorry for not telling you this. Yes. The app works alright when : executed from the console. But my problem is with xterm or Eterm. They don't : handle VT100 very well. I've added a nanosleep after each VT100 output but : that didn't solve the issue. In fact Eterm or xterm might not update the value : for as long as 5-8 seconds. I tested burncd's code and it uses fprintf to : update the bytes it sends. And that works perfectly under Eterm and xterm. Actually, xterm handles VT100 very well. The console does not. The console implements a variant of ANSI that's different from the variant of ANSI that the vt100 did. so if it works on the console, but acts differently in an X term, that's likely due to the differences between the terminal emulation both provide. Maybe the problem isn't one of performance, but one of emulation? Warner