Bug 3157 – [patch] Pipes should be closed with pclose

Status
RESOLVED
Resolution
FIXED
Severity
major
Priority
P2
Component
phobos
Product
D
Version
D2
Platform
Other
OS
Linux
Creation time
2009-07-09T03:55:00Z
Last change time
2015-06-09T01:28:06Z
Keywords
patch
Assigned to
andrei
Creator
bugzilla

Attachments

IDFilenameSummaryContent-TypeSize
418stdio.patchPatch for stdio.d version 2.031text/plain1417
750pclose.diffupdated and slightly alternate implmentationtext/plain3661

Comments

Comment #0 by bugzilla — 2009-07-09T03:55:10Z
Created attachment 418 Patch for stdio.d version 2.031 FILE*s opened with popen should be closed with pclose, not fclose. I've attached a patch (against stdio.d, version 2.031) which makes File.close do this automatically. This bug causes problems with e.g. the std.process.shell function, which throws an exception whenever a program returns with a nonzero exit status. Example: import std.process; void main() { shell("dmd"); } When DMD is run with no arguments it returns 1, so running the program above causes the following error: std.contracts.ErrnoException: std/stdio.d(397): Could not close file `dmd' (Success) I've created a simple patch against stdio.d to fix this. (It's my first patch ever, so be gentle...) It adds the member "bool isPipe" to the File.Impl struct, which simply tells whether the file is opened with popen or not. The File.close() method checks isPipe and calls pclose if it is true. Note that pclose returns the exit status of the program, so I had to remove the errnoEnforce for that case. Another solution is of course to add a method File.pclose, and require that all popen'ed Files must also be pclosed. However, I think it is better if File.close does this automatically.
Comment #1 by bugzilla — 2010-04-26T00:14:41Z
*** Issue 4127 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment #2 by braddr — 2010-09-08T02:07:01Z
Created attachment 750 updated and slightly alternate implmentation This patch makes me a little ill.. abusing an exception to propagate more data because the File abstraction around the pipe is a poor fit. BUT, I really want to be able to get both the string output as well as it's result code. So.. thoughts?
Comment #3 by andrei — 2010-09-26T18:12:08Z