From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6422 invoked from network); 20 Dec 1996 01:23:14 -0000 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by coral.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Dec 1996 01:23:14 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA18991; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:22:39 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:22:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612200122.UAA02421@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> To: Wolfgang Hukriede Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: zsh-3.0.2 repacked In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:38:39 +0100." <199612200038.BAA18599@sally.ifm.uni-kiel.de> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:22:33 -0500 From: Richard Coleman Resent-Message-ID: <"F-pcx.0.ge4.VfUko"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2603 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > I'm sorry, but definitely there's no such alleged bug in the NeXTStep libc. > Setting BAUD to zero fixes the jumping movement of the cursor, nothing else, > the screen output is as fast/slow as without setting BAUD. > > Then, after: > > setvbuf(shout, NULL, _IOFBF, 0); > > shout->_bufsiz gives ZERO, as well as shout->_base still is ZERO, in other > words, shout is unbuffered. I cannot imagine this should be different with > other libc's. Have you actually checked this? > > Also, to fix that all, > > setvbuf(shout, NULL, _IOFBF, BUFSIZ); > > is totally sufficient, and has the advantage, that the buffer only is > allocated if shout is actually used. (Further: imo there's really no need for > conditional compilation here.). This is definitely a bug. If second argument is NULL, and the mode is either _IOFBF (fully buffered) or _IOLBF (line buffered), then the libc should ignore the fourth argument and allocate a buffer of the appropriate length. This is according to Steven's "Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment". rc