[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?
From: |
Matthew Wakeling |
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail? |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:02:59 +0000 (GMT) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) |
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, David Corlette wrote:
Hello there,
Wow, that's quite a cross-post you have there.
Thoughts? Is there some limitation of which I am not aware that
prevents this from working? Where does the data go in case D?
It's all to do with buffering. The data is being held in a buffer, and not
being flushed to the next stage of the pipeline. You see, the middle
process can only see its stdin and stdout, and neither are terminals, so
it reverts to an efficient mode of operation of not bothering to flush its
output buffers. If you could tell the middle processes that they are
actually outputting to an interactive terminal, then they would flush the
output as soon as they generate it.
Is there currently a way to do that? This problem has certainly caught me
out in the past (admittedly about ten years ago).
Matthew
--
To most people, solutions mean finding the answers. But to chemists,
solutions are things that are still all mixed up.
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, (continued)
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Pádraig Brady, 2008/11/25
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Jim Meyering, 2008/11/25
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Paolo Bonzini, 2008/11/25
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Jim Meyering, 2008/11/25
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Paolo Bonzini, 2008/11/25
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Pádraig Brady, 2008/11/25
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Pádraig Brady, 2008/11/25
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Jim Meyering, 2008/11/25
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Matthew Woehlke, 2008/11/24
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Paolo Bonzini, 2008/11/21
Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?,
Matthew Wakeling <=