[NTG-pdftex] unbuffered vs. buffered terminal output

Martin Schröder martin at oneiros.de
Thu Dec 22 00:05:56 CET 2005

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.


More information about the ntg-pdftex mailing list