[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
What should standard output of --results be?
From: |
Ole Tange |
Subject: |
What should standard output of --results be? |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:01:15 +0200 |
Having read https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?51261 I am
wondering whether --results is doing the right thing.
Currently this:
parallel --results res echo ::: foo
saves 'foo' into res/1/foo/stdout, after which GNU Parallel reads back
the file and outputs it to standard output.
It is easy to ignore standard output, if you do not need it:
parallel --results res echo ::: foo > /dev/null
But it still means the file will be read.
The bug report is about this: they have a performance penalty by this
last reading which they send directly to /dev/null.
I cannot recall that I have ever used the output on standard output
from --results, so I am wondering if it is doing the right thing. If
you have used the output please weigh in and give your opinion.
--results should of course continue to save into the dir/args/stdout
file structure, so the question here is only what should happen to
standard output.
I see at least 3 alternatives:
* Keep as is
$ parallel --results res echo ::: foo
foo
* No output to standard output
$ parallel --results res echo ::: foo
<<nothing>>
* Output of the stdout filename to standard output (similar to --files)
$ parallel --results res echo ::: foo
res/1/foo/stdout
Do you have any thoughts?
/Ole
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- What should standard output of --results be?,
Ole Tange <=