Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >>> What about adding buffer control to all coretuils filters. >>> Is that still a desired feature do you think? >> >> I don't relish the idea of adding an option or feature >> to each and every filter in coreutils. Especially >> considering that this approach solves the problem -- >> albeit with requirement on gcc and LD_PRELOAD. >> Maybe we can relax that requirement... > > A general tool would be much better than adding options > to all filters, hence why I originally asked to have this > added to glibc. > > I wonder would it be useful to have a "Modified command invocation" > command that set the LD_PRELOAD environment variable to point > to a lib installed, and also set other environment variables > to control the buffering depending on command line options. > > For example if we called the command stdbuf, then > the following pipeline would be line buffered: > > tail -f access.log | stdbuf --fd=1 --size=1 cut -d' ' -f1 | uniq > > size=0 => unbuffered > size=1 => line buffered > size>1 -> specific buffer size > > Also we could have aliases for stdin stdout, linebuffered, ... > > We still have the requirement on LD_PRELOAD, but > that's not too bad I think?
I like that. The "stdbuf" name sounds fine, too. Though maybe use --size=-1 to indicate line buffering, (or even a separate --line-buffered option), rather than usurping --size=1. Sounds like you've just volunteered ;-) _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
