[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2011-03-27 Thread Ross Lagerwall
Ross Lagerwall rosslagerw...@gmail.com added the comment: Unbuffered subprocess was fixed in 1dc52ecb8949 Closing this as a duplicate of #11459. -- nosy: +rosslagerwall resolution: - duplicate status: open - closed ___ Python tracker

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2010-10-19 Thread Hirokazu Yamamoto
Hirokazu Yamamoto ocean-c...@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp added the comment: I implemented msg117279 with v2 patch. Can I commit it? # If your are already working on this issue, please ignore # my patch. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file19280/py3k_fix_unbuffered_in_subprocess_v2.patch

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2010-10-19 Thread Hirokazu Yamamoto
Hirokazu Yamamoto ocean-c...@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp added the comment: Umm, v2 patch broke test_subprocess. I'll repost v3 patch after removing bufsize=0 universal_newlines check. == ERROR: test_universal_newlines

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2010-09-27 Thread R. David Murray
R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com added the comment: But if line buffering doesn't work, disabling buffering on stdout/stderr does have a functional consequence: it allows process output to appear as generated instead of coming in chunks when the buffer is full. Of course, I could be

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2010-09-27 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: But if line buffering doesn't work, disabling buffering on stdout/stderr does have a functional consequence: it allows process output to appear as generated instead of coming in chunks when the buffer is full Yes, sorry, I had it backwards.

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2010-09-27 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: But if line buffering doesn't work, disabling buffering on stdout/stderr does have a functional consequence: it allows process output to appear as generated instead of coming in chunks when the buffer is full Yes, sorry, I had it

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2010-09-26 Thread Hirokazu Yamamoto
Hirokazu Yamamoto ocean-c...@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp added the comment: Antoine, can you create the patch? I'm not familiar with IO. -- ___ Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org http://bugs.python.org/issue9929 ___

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2010-09-24 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: You are right that it doesn't work anymore (under Linux too). Your patch is almost ok. It should raise a ValueError if bufsize=0 and universal_newlines is true (the two can't be satisfied together, since universal newlines implies buffering).

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work

2010-09-24 Thread Antoine Pitrou
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment: As another sidenote, `bufsize` should only be relevant for stdin. For stdout and stderr, disabling buffering will only reduce performance, not add functionality. So I would suggest only setting buffering on stding. --

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work (windows)

2010-09-23 Thread Hirokazu Yamamoto
New submission from Hirokazu Yamamoto ocean-c...@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp: Following script hangs on Python3.x. from subprocess import * import sys p = Popen([sys.executable, -c, import sys; print(sys.stdin.read(1))], stdin=PIPE) p.stdin.write(b'x') p.wait() This is because unbuffered functionality

[issue9929] subprocess.Popen unbuffered not work (windows)

2010-09-23 Thread Hirokazu Yamamoto
Hirokazu Yamamoto ocean-c...@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp added the comment: Interestingly, following code also hangs. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of *bufsize* from subprocess import * import sys p = Popen([sys.executable, -c, import sys; print(sys.stdin.read(1))], stdin=PIPE)