I once tried to fork out a pipelined process into the background that
I could pipe input to and then read the output from (hopefully without
using files). I never quite got it working (the I/O wouldn't block
when there was no data), but that may be my poor shell programming
skills. I'm thinking
> I know the above doesn't work, but could it be done in some other,
> hopefully portable, way? Wouldn't it speed up configure by a lot if
> we could apply it to the right sub-tasks?
>
> I was even thinking the "resident" sub-process could be a shell that
> looped over a read+switch/case express
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:25:14PM +0200, Lars J. Aas wrote:
> echo "dirname:$0" >$sed_in_fd
> read basename <$sed_out_fd
This is pretty fragile, unless you write the subprocess code in C
(or maybe Perl) and ensure that it's completely unbuffered.
On many (most?) systems, if sed's output is
On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 10:39:33PM +0200, Tim Van Holder wrote:
: > I know the above doesn't work, but could it be done in some other,
: > hopefully portable, way? Wouldn't it speed up configure by a lot if
: > we could apply it to the right sub-tasks?
: >
: > I was even thinking the "resident"
