kern/94772: FIFOs (named pipes) + select() == broken

[Oliver Fromme]

The following reply was made to PR kern/94772; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Oliver Fromme <olli at lurza.secnetix.de>
To: bde at zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Cc: bug-followup at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/94772: FIFOs (named pipes) + select() == broken
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:52:02 +0100 (CET)

 Hi Bruce,
 
 I took the liberty to modify your test programs so that
 their output is compliant with the regression framework
 in src/tools/regression.
 
 http://www.secnetix.de/~olli/tmp/pipepoll/
 
 I also modified them so that they perform all tests both
 with nameless pipes and with FIFOs, without having to
 recompile with different defines.
 
 Shall I open a separate PR to get them commited to
 src/tools/regression/pipepoll?
 
 Oh, by the way, the patch set that I mailed still has
 two failure cases with nameless pipes (I didn't notice
 at first because I only tested the NAMEDPIPE case):
 
 not ok 4  Pipe state 6a: expected POLLHUP; got POLLIN | POLLHUP
 not ok 8  Pipe state 6a: expected POLLHUP; got POLLIN | POLLHUP
 
 Those were broken before, too, so my patch doesn't make
 things worse, at least.  :-)   I'll try to fix those,
 too.  However, some feedback on my patches so far would
 be welcome.
 
 Best regards
    Oliver
 
 -- 
 Oliver Fromme,  secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
 Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
 Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
 and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.
 
  > Can the denizens of this group enlighten me about what the
  > advantages of Python are, versus Perl ?
 "python" is more likely to pass unharmed through your spelling
 checker than "perl".
         -- An unknown poster and Fredrik Lundh