From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Sep 11 7: 0:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B762937B400; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.nectar.cc (gw.nectar.cc [208.42.49.153]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348A043E6A; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:00:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nectar@nectar.cc) Received: from madman.nectar.cc (madman.nectar.cc [10.0.1.111]) by gw.nectar.cc (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9A764; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:00:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: by madman.nectar.cc (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 44092137BAB; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:00:51 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:00:51 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" To: Mike Barcroft Cc: Bakul Shah , Archie Cobbs , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /dev/stdout behavior Message-ID: <20020911140051.GI2539@madman.nectar.cc> Mail-Followup-To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" , Mike Barcroft , Bakul Shah , Archie Cobbs , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200209102135.g8ALZXm34757@arch20m.dellroad.org> <200209102200.SAA07377@thunderer.cnchost.com> <20020910203012.E40217@espresso.q9media.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020910203012.E40217@espresso.q9media.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Url: http://www.celabo.org/ Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 08:30:12PM -0400, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Bakul Shah writes: > > > > You need to fix your test program similarly and run it under > > > > Linux to see if the two OSes behave differently. > > > > > > They do behave differently, even after adjusting '0' to '1': > > > > > > $ uname -a > > > Linux foobar.packetdesign.com 2.4.9 #19 SMP Mon Oct 29 11:55:31 PST 2001 > > > i686 unknown > > > $ ./flags > > > O_NONBLOCK is not set > > > > Hmmm... are /dev/stdin etc. part of Posix? If not, linux can > > do what it wants. > > POSIX specifies three special files: /dev/null, /dev/tty, and > /dev/console. So the answer is no. POSIX specifies /dev/stdout as a magic argument to uudecode (only?). For example, in the POSIX specification of uudecode: `` The following option shall be supported by the implementation: -o outfile A pathname of a file that shall be used instead of any pathname contained in the input data. Specifying an outfile option-argument of /dev/stdout shall indicate standard output. '' and `` The /dev/stdout concept exists on most modern systems. The /dev/stdout syntax does not refer to a new special file. It is just a magic cookie to specify standard output. '' It seems that /dev/stdin and /dev/stderr are implementation specific constructs, as is /dev/stdout except for uudecode/uuencode. IMHO, it's very silly. Cheers, -- Jacques A. Vidrine http://www.celabo.org/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@FreeBSD.org . nectar@kth.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message