Re: There is no consensus on beos yet...

[Bruce Korb <bkorb at sco dot COM>]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> > *WHICH* one is that?  The shell script?  (please say, "No" here :)
> Yup, we used the shell scripts because fast-fixincludes (as it was called
> then) didn't work on BeOS

That was *TWO* years ago!  I never heard a peep about this in
all that time!

> fork doesn't work all that well on BeOS, and you expect to be able to
> fork, then duplicate the file descriptors using fcntl so you can make stdin,
> stdout.
> 
> Nobody on beos uses fork (literally), because it doesn't mix with threads.
> fcntl is also not up to snuff, because, once again, nobody uses fcntl on
> BeOS.
> Nobody uses the posix api stuff unless they are porting unixy apps.

There is a special DOS variation, too.  It, also, does not use fork().
It uses system() to handle subprocesses.  Look at "Makefile.DOS".

> It's not the actual piing, which works fine on BeOS, it's the way you are
> trying to set up those pipes, using fcntl, and forking, which appears to
> be causing hell.
>
> My best guess is that the hang is caused by not being able to dupe the FD
> through fcntl, and thus, the shell process sittings waiting to read from
> a pipe that isn't giving it any input.

Yep.  The DOS version ought to work.

> As I said, i'm happy to provide a computer you can see it on, and attempt
> to debug.

First, try the DOS version.  The last I remember, it worked,
but I don't think the DOS folks (DJ Delorie) ever got around
to telling me it was ready for prime time.  Then, failing that,
send me a machine name and login via private email (to bkorb@cruzio.com).
Thanks!