Hi, On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 1:17 PM Louis Santillan <[email protected]> wrote: > > It wasn't clear what is not buffered. Is TurboC 2.0.1 itself (the compiler, > linker, make, etc.)? Or TurboC 2.0.1's runtime?
It's been a while since I've looked into it. I'm not quite a true standards expert (BUFSIZ ??), so my understanding is limited. But I meant runtime as in default file buffering (fread, setbuf). I also created a thread on news://comp.os.msdos.programmer (back in 2016) titled "stdout unbuffered?? (Turbo C 2.01 vs. Turbo C++ 1.01)". I was hoping someone would know why, but nobody did. I also wanted to make sure it was known so people wouldn't "accidentally" keep preferring the old, buggy (but admittedly freeware) compiler. * https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.os.msdos.programmer/rugxulo$20db%7Csort:date/comp.os.msdos.programmer/erSPwBbzXdc/4nj-zQcaAgAJ My example there was a very simple hexdump program. On a 2 MB .ZIP, unbuffered took 12 secs. while buffered was only half a second. See what I mean? Not ideal. And only TC2.01 had that problem, not other compilers. I'm somewhat conflating issues here, so I hope I'm not being overly obtuse. It's just something I found interesting. (Hey, this is -devel, even if some disagree about what exactly qualifies for being on-topic.) _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
