On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 06:52:47PM +0100, Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
> >That seems OK to me, but it might be nice if STDIO was smart enough to
> >understand that writes to FILEs open for appending should be "atomic",
> >and so to flush the stdio cache at application write boundaries.
> 
> Hm, I think I'd still prefer writes when the buffer is full.

I had in mind flushing the buffer when it's full, but only up to an
application write boundary (a fprintf or fwrite, say).

> But we could make the log files line buffered.

That's fine too.

> >> * The behaviour Renaud saw is for a case where the file descriptor lacks
> >>   O_APPEND.
> >
> >OT: I could swear I've seen shells that don't use O_APPEND when using
> >'>>', but ksh93 does it.
> 
> sh doesn't, csh doesn't but the other I tried do (tcsh, ksh, ksh93, bash, 
> zsh)

Good to know.  Thanks!  IMO they all should.  Is there any good reason
why they shouldn't?

Reply via email to