Would a lock on STDOUT not achieve the same effect, 1/ without having
to introduce new syntax and 2/ while appearing more responsive to the
user?
You'd also still potentially get output conflated, as atomic write
size is a fixed size (I believe in the order of 2-4K on most systems,
looks to be 2K
On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Ovid wrote:
if the 'some subtest' subtest didn't emit anything until
that summary 'ok 1' line, can we safely run subtests in parallel
without worrying about whether or not their output overlaps?
Not unless you can put a lock on the file handle. Or, I guess, you
Hi all,
I hope this idea makes sense.
I was thinking about the issue of running subtests in parallel when I
thought about the idea of a "buffered subtest". Basically, it would
work exactly like a normal subtest, but nothing would go to STDOUT or
STDERR until the final line (the non-nested test
