GNU bug report logs - #56025
29.0.50; em-extpipe-test-2 times out on EMBA and Cygwin

Previous Next

Full log

Message #85 received at 56025 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton <at> email.arizona.edu>
To: Jim Porter <jporterbugs <at> gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Ken
 Brown <kbrown <at> cornell.edu>
Cc: larsi <at> gnus.org, 56025 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#56025: 29.0.50; em-extpipe-test-2 times out on EMBA and Cygwin
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 14:11:45 -0700

Hello,

On Sun 26 Jun 2022 at 10:22AM -07, Jim Porter wrote:

> On 6/26/2022 10:12 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Fri 24 Jun 2022 at 04:03pm -07, Jim Porter wrote:
>>
>>>     When [EOF is] received, all the bytes waiting to be read are
>>>     immediately passed to the process without waiting for a <newline>, and
>>>     the EOF is discarded. Thus, if there are no bytes waiting (that is,
>>>     the EOF occurred at the beginning of a line), a byte count of zero
>>>     shall be returned from the read(), representing an end-of-file
>>>     indication.
>>>
>>> I interpret that to mean that the preferred way to indicate end-of-file
>>> to `rev' in this case is to send it "hi [NL] [EOF]". The second EOF that
>>> Eshell sends when closing the stderr output handle is superfluous, but
>>> it works fine as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>> [1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap11.html
>>
>> The text states unconditionally that when an EOF is received it is
>> discarded by the OS.  So we can infer that it's fine to send three,
>> according to the standard -- it's not just that it happens to work.
>>
>> Thanks again for working on this.
>
> Ah, good catch. I glossed over the last sentence in that paragraph in
> the spec (hence why I didn't copy-paste it).

I was actually thinking it was implied by the first sentence of what you
quoted.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.