Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 12:53:43PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >Can anyone make heads (or tails) of this now? >> >> Read my original message. stderr does not buffer its output. stdout does. > >Okay, but I'm afraid that doesn't quite compute to me, maybe you could >c

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

Christopher Faylor wrote: > >Hmmm. Well, I managed to come up with this minimal testcase: > > There is no need for a test case. I already mentioned that this is a > known issue and pinpointed where the problem lies. Fair enough. > >Can anyone make heads (or tails) of this now? > > Read my or

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 11:58:59PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>This crops up on the cygwin list from time to time. >> >>IIRC, if you use 'setbuf(f, NULL)' in newlib (as is the case for >>stderr), it causes newlib to flush on every character. I submitted a >>patch to fi

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

Christopher Faylor wrote: > This crops up on the cygwin list from time to time. > > IIRC, if you use 'setbuf(f, NULL)' in newlib (as is the case for > stderr), it causes newlib to flush on every character. I submitted a > patch to fix this behavior many years ago but it was rejected. I think >

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:11:55PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:02:15PM -0400, Larry Hall wrote: >>Brian Dessent wrote: >>>Larry Hall wrote: Works for me fine either way. Perhaps providing information requested by will shed

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:02:15PM -0400, Larry Hall wrote: >Brian Dessent wrote: >>Larry Hall wrote: >>>Works for me fine either way. Perhaps providing information >>>requested by will shed some light. >>>Perhaps not. >>> >>>You could try it with strace and post

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

Brian Dessent wrote: Larry Hall wrote: Nope. :-) Works for me fine either way. Perhaps providing information requested by will shed some light. Perhaps not. You could try it with strace and post the results too. Ok, attached should be the cygcheck -srv outpu

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

Larry Hall wrote: > Nope. :-) > > Works for me fine either way. Perhaps providing information > requested by will shed some light. > Perhaps not. > > You could try it with strace and post the results too. Ok, attached should be the cygcheck -srv output. Also,

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

Brian Dessent wrote: Brian Dessent wrote: I'm running under Win2k SP3, cygwin.dll version 1.3.22-1, CYGWIN="ntea tty ntsec" (the partition is NTFS), and a bunch of packages all of whatever the latest stable version is according to setup.exe. I use plain old bash as my shell, no rxvt or X Window

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Brian Dessent wrote: > Brian Dessent wrote: > > > I'm running under Win2k SP3, cygwin.dll version 1.3.22-1, CYGWIN="ntea > > tty ntsec" (the partition is NTFS), and a bunch of packages all of > > whatever the latest stable version is according to setup.exe. I use > > plain ol

Re: stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

Brian Dessent wrote: > I'm running under Win2k SP3, cygwin.dll version 1.3.22-1, CYGWIN="ntea > tty ntsec" (the partition is NTFS), and a bunch of packages all of > whatever the latest stable version is according to setup.exe. I use > plain old bash as my shell, no rxvt or X Windows or anything.

stderr outputs veerrrryyy slowly

Hi, I've been using cygwin for a while now and most of the time I've been able to figure out what's going on by RTFMing or searching, but this one I can't seem to figure out. Under certain circumstances, messages from programs that are sent to stderr are displayed on the console very slowly. It