Feature Requests item #967161, was opened at 2004-06-06 00:29 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by jhenstridge You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=967161&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Python Library Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: A.M. Kuchling (akuchling) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: pty.spawn() enhancements Initial Comment: (Originally suggested by James Henstridge in bug #897935) There are also a few changes that would be nice to see in pty.spawn: 1) get the exit status of the child. Could be fixed by adding the following to the end of the function: pid, status = os.waitpid(pid, 0) return status 2) set master_fd to non-blocking mode, so that the output is printed to the screen at the speed it is produced by the child. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Date: 2007-03-20 15:32 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=146903 Originator: NO #2 was an old misunderstanding by me about file.read() vs. os.read() w.r.t pipes, so is not needed. As for returning the status code vs the pid, it looks like spawn() is designed to return only when it can't read/write to the subprocess. You could return the pid at this point, but the process has most likely finished running at this point so the only thing you'd be likely to do is call waitpid() on it (and it is necessary to call waitpid() for the child process to be cleaned up properly). That's why I suggested that pty.spawn() get the child status itself. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Neal Norwitz (nnorwitz) Date: 2007-03-16 15:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=33168 Originator: NO Wouldn't it be better to just return the pid. The caller can get the status if they want or do anything else with the pid. I'm guessing #2 is no longer requested? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: James Henstridge (jhenstridge) Date: 2004-06-09 22:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=146903 Since filing the original bug report, I got reports that simply setting the fds to non-blocking caused problems under Solaris. Some details are available in this bug report: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139168 The _copy() function never raised an IOError or OSError, so it never exited. I'd imagine that EOF could be detected by getting back then empty string when reading from the fd when select() says it is ready for reading, but I haven't checked whether this works. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=967161&group_id=5470 _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
