Re: [NTG-pdftex] unbuffered vs. buffered terminal output

On 2005-12-21 21:16:32 +0100, Hartmut Henkel wrote:

So at least here pdfetex spends lots of time just for unbuffered talk to the terminal. And it's faster with a smaller window.

If you want speed, use \batchmode.

Maybe we should think of implementing buffered writing? See e. g. man 3 setbuf. The problem is that it should fflush() in case of errors and switch to unbuffered. And maybe it should fflush() also after a certain time of say 0.5 s, which would require select().

Using buffered terminal output would IMHO seriously change the appearance of TeX, so no. Best Martin -- http://www.tm.oneiros.de