chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) (12/09/89)
In article <333@charyb.COM> dan@charyb.COM (Dan Mick) writes: >fflush()? You've gotta do that more than once. Why not add a >setbuf(stdout, NULL) to the top of the file? Quick, easy, simple. ... and slow. I mean *really* slow. I mean, really truly HORRIBLY slow. I mean, if you think the city buses are slow. . . . Why not, instead, add a `setvbuf(stdout, (char *)NULL, _IOFBF)' to main, and then (since tty output will no longer be line buffered, being efficient instead) add fflush() calls whenever you want the output to be visible? I have done it; it is not hard; it makes programs that produce much output go much faster. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@cs.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
dan@charyb.COM (Dan Mick) (12/10/89)
In article <21184@mimsy.umd.edu> chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes: (about using setbuf(stdout, NULL) >... and slow. I mean *really* slow. I mean, really truly HORRIBLY >slow. I mean, if you think the city buses are slow. . . . Yes, you're absolutely right. I'd thought he was looking for output whilst debugging; I don't have any idea how I got that notion locked in my head. Sorry. Of course it's horribly inefficient. While debugging, I don't care, and it involves virtually no source mods, so it's far easier to stick in as a temporary change. But you wouldn't wanna do it for a finished program. Sorry for the confusion. Some humility probably doesn't hurt me, anyway. -- .sig files are idiotic and wasteful.