X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:46:26 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Maxima can't write to /dev/stdout
Message-ID: <20120726094626.GK29107@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <loom DOT 20120726T084637-318 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20120726081722 DOT GA5132 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <loom DOT 20120726T110441-843 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <loom.20120726T110441-843@post.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Jul 26 09:23, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin <at> cygwin.com> writes:
> > And here something goes wrong.  If I call `echo foo > /dev/stdout' in
> > bash, the above normalize_posix_path calls already handle the path
> > /proc/196/fd/1, not just /proc/196/fd as lisp does.
> 
> Thanks for having a look, that got me one step further.  Maxima uses a (captive)
> clisp and the standalone clisp makes the same error:
> 
> [1]> (open "/dev/stdout")
> 
> *** - OPEN: File #P"/proc/3348/fd/" does not exist
> 
> So the same thing happens in clisp and it seems to affect only(?) symlinks
> pointing to /proc, some other symlinks I tried that were pointing to /dev/tty as
> a test have not had that problem.  Is it possible that clisp uses an API that
> isn't aware of /proc somehow?

That *should* be impossible.  The path handling is supposed to be
transparently handling all real and virtual paths, regardless of
the function calling the path handling stuff.

If you can nail that down to the actual calls and decisions clisp is
doing, it might help to find the cause.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple