Is process substitution expected to work in 1.7.1?
Here's what I tried:
kilr...@minime ~
$ uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-5.1 MINIME 1.7.1(0.218/5/3) 2009-12-07 11:48 i686 Cygwin
kilr...@minime ~
$ echo LOG:bananas | tee file.txt
LOG:bananas
kilr...@minime ~
$ cat file.txt
LOG:bananas
kilr...@minime ~
$ e
Process substitution in bash is not working for me currently. I'm pretty
certain it worked at some point in the past (maybe about 6 months ago).
For example:
$ cat <( echo hello)
hangs, ignoring ^C, kill -9, and requiring kill -f on the cat
process.
Reading the bash manual, it seems bash can
On Jan 22 18:46, Dave wrote:
> Is process substitution expected to work in 1.7.1?
>
> Here's what I tried:
>
> kilr...@minime ~
> $ uname -a
> CYGWIN_NT-5.1 MINIME 1.7.1(0.218/5/3) 2009-12-07 11:48 i686 Cygwin
>
> kilr...@minime ~
> $ echo LOG:bananas | tee file.txt
> LOG:bananas
>
> kilr...@mi
On Jan 23 12:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 22 18:46, Dave wrote:
> > Is process substitution expected to work in 1.7.1?
> >
> > Here's what I tried:
> >
> > kilr...@minime ~
> > $ uname -a
> > CYGWIN_NT-5.1 MINIME 1.7.1(0.218/5/3) 2009-12-07 11:48 i686 Cygwin
> >
> > kilr...@minime ~
> >
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:07:19PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jan 22 18:46, Dave wrote:
>> Is process substitution expected to work in 1.7.1?
>>
>> Here's what I tried:
>>
>> kilr...@minime ~
>> $ uname -a
>> CYGWIN_NT-5.1 MINIME 1.7.1(0.218/5/3) 2009-12-07 11:48 i686 Cygwin
>>
>> kilr..
I tried building bash from the source package, and then it uses either
/dev/fd (if I have that as a symlink) or /proc/self/fd (if I don't),
rather than the fifo that the binary package uses. So perhaps whoever
built the binary package didn't have /proc/self/fd for whatever reason?
With my built ba
Lev S Bishop wrote:
> rather than the fifo that the binary package uses. So perhaps whoever
> built the binary package didn't have /proc/self/fd for whatever reason?
If I'm not mistaken /proc//fd capabilty was added 2005-02-01. The
current bash package (2.05b-16) was released 2003-10-23. (the t
Brian Dessent wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken /proc//fd capabilty was added 2005-02-01. The
> current bash package (2.05b-16) was released 2003-10-23. (the test
> version -17 was released 2004-11-22.) So it was quite impossible for
> the person who built bash to have that feature.
Thanks for this
On Apr 14 08:04, Lev S Bishop wrote:
> I tried building bash from the source package, and then it uses either
> /dev/fd (if I have that as a symlink) or /proc/self/fd (if I don't),
> rather than the fifo that the binary package uses. So perhaps whoever
> built the binary package didn't have /proc/s
Corina wrote:
> In the Linux kernel there's some magic
> going on which we can't reproduce in Cygwin so far. Trying to open
> an existing pipe for writing or reading opens apparently exactly the
> right end of the pipe under Linux. On Windows, you only get the exact
> end of the pipe which is alr
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Lev S Bishop wrote:
> Corina wrote:
^^
Sorry, Corinna.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:58:13AM -0400, Lev S Bishop wrote:
>Process substitution in bash is not working for me currently. I'm pretty
>certain it worked at some point in the past (maybe about 6 months ago).
>
>For example:
>$ cat <( echo hello)
>
>hangs, ignoring ^C, kill -9, and requiring kill
On Sat 3/10/07 15:55 MST Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Tom Rodman on 3/10/2007 8:14 AM:
> > ~ $ /tmp/foo <(echo ABC)
> > + test -s /proc/self/fd/63
> > + echo 1
> >
> > The 'test -s "$file"' in the test run above should return 0.
>
> How do you figure? pipes are special file types, and
ining the two fails.
Any thoughts on what may be wrong here?
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/bash-process-substitution-hangs-with-ssh-tp26983912p26983912.html
Sent from the Cygwin list mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/prob
test script "/tmp/foo", and test run showing the problem:
~ $ cat /tmp/foo
#!/bin/bash
file=$1
TMPF=$(mktemp /tmp/XX)
set -x
test -s "$file" || echo $?
cp $file $TMPF
cat $TMPF
~ $ /tmp/foo <(echo ABC)
+ test -s /proc/self/fd/63
+ echo 1
1
+ cp /proc/self/fd/63 /tmp
aputerguy writes:
> ssh remotemachine cat remotefile>
Note typo above. Should be:
ssh remotemachine cat remotefile
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/bash-process-substitution-hangs-with-ssh-tp26983912p26983920.html
Sent from the Cygwin list mailing list arch
n context:
http://old.nabble.com/bash-process-substitution-hangs-with-ssh-tp26983912p26983954.html
Sent from the Cygwin list mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://c
OK I got it to work by using 'ssh -n' since I guess otherwise it was waiting
to read from stdin.
Not sure though why it works without '-n' in Linux...
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/bash-process-substitution-hangs-with-ssh-tp26983912p26983985.html
And interestingly,
the mkfifo version still dumps core even with 'ssh -n'
I'm confused...
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/bash-process-substitution-hangs-with-ssh-tp26983912p26983991.html
Sent from the Cygwin list mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Tom Rodman on 3/10/2007 8:14 AM:
> ~ $ /tmp/foo <(echo ABC)
> + test -s /proc/self/fd/63
> + echo 1
>
> The 'test -s "$file"' in the test run above should return 0.
How do you figure? pipes are special file types, and st_size is
u
I am exploring how process substitution works on Cygwin. I have scripts
which run fine on Linux but not on Windows XP.
Why does one of these scripts produce an error and the other does not?
Script #1:
$ cat a
#!/bin/bash
function f()
{
echo "$1"
cat "$1"
}
f <(echo OK)
$ ./a
/proc/se
B. K. Oxley (binkley) wrote:
> I am exploring how process substitution works on Cygwin. I have scripts
> which run fine on Linux but not on Windows XP.
>
> Why does one of these scripts produce an error and the other does not?
>
> Script #1:
>
> $ cat a
> #!/bin/bash
>
> function f()
> {
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to B. K. Oxley (binkley) on 5/29/2007 9:05 PM:
> Why does one of these scripts produce an error and the other does not?
> function f()
> {
>echo "$1"
shell builtin, and it does not touch the fifo (try replacing this with
/bin/echo to see
[Picking a better subject line]
From: Anders Brandén
> Hi,
>
> referring http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-04/msg00651.html
>
> I have a comment,
>
> the problem seems to be more of a general kind(files that doesn't exist
> already don't get created for writing) as these things happen on my
24 matches
Mail list logo
