[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?
From: |
Pádraig Brady |
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail? |
Date: |
Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:31:45 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071008) |
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>> What about adding buffer control to all coretuils filters.
>>>> Is that still a desired feature do you think?
>>> I don't relish the idea of adding an option or feature
>>> to each and every filter in coreutils. Especially
>>> considering that this approach solves the problem --
>>> albeit with requirement on gcc and LD_PRELOAD.
>>> Maybe we can relax that requirement...
>> A general tool would be much better than adding options
>> to all filters, hence why I originally asked to have this
>> added to glibc.
>>
>> I wonder would it be useful to have a "Modified command invocation"
>> command that set the LD_PRELOAD environment variable to point
>> to a lib installed, and also set other environment variables
>> to control the buffering depending on command line options.
>>
>> For example if we called the command stdbuf, then
>> the following pipeline would be line buffered:
>>
>> tail -f access.log | stdbuf --fd=1 --size=1 cut -d' ' -f1 | uniq
>>
>> size=0 => unbuffered
>> size=1 => line buffered
>> size>1 -> specific buffer size
>>
>> Also we could have aliases for stdin stdout, linebuffered, ...
>>
>> We still have the requirement on LD_PRELOAD, but
>> that's not too bad I think?
>
> I like that. The "stdbuf" name sounds fine, too.
> Though maybe use --size=-1 to indicate line buffering,
> (or even a separate --line-buffered option),
> rather than usurping --size=1.
>
> Sounds like you've just volunteered ;-)
Um Ok so :)
Thinking a little more about it, the interface above
is probably a little too general.
I'm now thinking of 3 options: stdbuf -i -o -e
The usual use case is: stdbuf -ol
But you could also do: stdbuf -i4096 -o8192
We would warn about redundant combos like: stdbuf -il
Pádraig.
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, (continued)
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Andreas Schwab, 2008/11/21
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Jim Meyering, 2008/11/21
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Jim Meyering, 2008/11/22
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Pádraig Brady, 2008/11/22
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Jim Meyering, 2008/11/22
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Brian Dessent, 2008/11/22
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Jim Meyering, 2008/11/29
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Pádraig Brady, 2008/11/30
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Pádraig Brady, 2008/11/24
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?, Jim Meyering, 2008/11/24
- Re: Possible bug with grep/sed/tail?,
Pádraig Brady <=
- 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, 2008/11/20