[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2011-01-12 Thread Charles-Francois Natali
Charles-Francois Natali neolo...@free.fr added the comment: This is normal behaviour: stdout is normally line buffered (_IOLBF) only if connected to a tty. When it's not connected to a tty, it's full buffered (_IOFBF). This is done on purpose for performance reason. To convince yourself, run

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2011-01-12 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: Agreed with Charles-François, this is normal behaviour since the bytes written on stdout are buffered (up to a certain size). If calling flush() doesn't solve the issue, please reopen the issue. -- resolution: - invalid status: open -

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2011-01-12 Thread Erik Demaine
Erik Demaine edema...@mit.edu added the comment: msg28537 shows a version with flush, and says that it fails. I haven't tested since 2006, though, so I can retry, in particular to see whether the patch suggested in the original post has been applied now. -- resolution: invalid -

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2011-01-12 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: msg28537 shows a version with flush, and says that it fails I cannot reproduce. Either with Python 2.5.2 (!), 2.7 or 3.2, on a remote Debian system. Even using kill -9 on the local ssh process does shut down the remote Python process. If I

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2011-01-12 Thread Erik Demaine
Erik Demaine edema...@mit.edu added the comment: I just tested on Python 2.5.2, 2.6.2, and 3.0.1, and I could not reproduce the error (using the code in msg28537). It would seem that file.flush is catching the problem, even though file.write is ignoring the error, but I can't see any changes

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2010-11-12 Thread A.M. Kuchling
Changes by A.M. Kuchling li...@amk.ca: -- assignee: akuchling - ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1488934 ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2010-08-03 Thread Terry J. Reedy
Changes by Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu: -- stage: - unit test needed versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1, Python 3.2 -Python 2.5, Python 2.6 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1488934

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2009-10-24 Thread Matteo Bertini
Changes by Matteo Bertini matt...@naufraghi.net: -- nosy: +naufraghi type: - behavior ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1488934 ___

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2009-10-07 Thread Forest Bond
Changes by Forest Bond for...@alittletooquiet.net: -- nosy: +forest_atq versions: +Python 2.6 ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue1488934 ___

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2008-01-09 Thread Ralf Schmitt
Ralf Schmitt added the comment: the c program is broken as it does not check the error code of fflush. The real problem is buffering. while True: __print 'Hello' __time.sleep (1) will not notice an error until the buffers are flushed. Running python t.py |head -n2 and killing head does not

[issue1488934] file.write + closed pipe = no error

2008-01-09 Thread Ralf Schmitt
Ralf Schmitt added the comment: ahh.no. the c program does the fflush on the logfile...sorry. _ Tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bugs.python.org/issue1488934 _ ___