Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/03/26/10:24:46
On Tuesday 26 March 2002 09:04, Pietro Toniolo wrote:
> Nay, I campiled the proposed program (every package on my side is in the
> "Last" status) and, with -no-cygwin, I do have an unbuffered stdout.
You mean buffered?
> Is it an "undefined behavior" of the c compiler?
> But why a different default behavior, with and without the flag?
Usually the libc decides if to use buffering by the fact if stdout is
atttached to a terminal (line buffering) or redirected to a file (full
buffering). Since -no-cygwin uses the MS libc, and MS libc doesn't know
anything about bash, I suppose they thing stdout is not connected to a
terminal when running under bash. This would at least explain this behaviour
and there would be nothing you can do about it, except using fflush (as a lot
of people already suggested).
Greetings,
--
Michael Teske
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -