Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:53:46 -0400 From: Steve Coleman Subject: Re: subprocess i/o interaction with shell (bash&cmd): shells compete for input with user program! In-reply-to: To: sds@gnu.org Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Message-id: <3F1DB26A.7090405@jhuapl.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <20030722145702.GA17342@redhat.com> <20030722172316.GC17916@redhat.com> Sam Steingold wrote: >I am not using fork(). >just plain exec(). > > If thats the case then the exec() you are linking is not behaving as a POSIX exec() call, because if it did you would not still have two processes to even compete for the I/O streams. The first process image would be "replaced" by the second. % man execl 8< --------- "The exec family of functions replaces the current process image with a new process image." ------------- So, either you are not using Cygwin execl(), or it is VERY broken, which I doubt because too many applications have been working correctly for too long for the second to be the case. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/