std::process should provide a facility to specify custom file descriptors to stdin/stdout/stderr #893

Closed
achernya opened this Issue Feb 22, 2015 · 3 comments

Projects

None yet

4 participants

@achernya

Currently, RFC #517 specifies that "The equivalent of today's InheritFd will be added at a later point.". However, this severely limits the utility of std::process. My current use case is writing a (toy) shell, without resorting to libc::*. Unfortunately, without support for setting custom file descriptors in std::process, it's not possible to implement features like file redirection or pipelines.

From my reading of libstd/process.rs and libstd/sys/${PLATFORM}/process2.rs, it looks like all of the platform-specific code for handling AnonPipe/FileDesc is already in place, and a small change to the API of process.rs would allow for setting custom AnonPipe.

I'm happy to work on a patch (assuming that I haven't missed any important details in my analysis regarding difficulty).

@l0kod
l0kod commented Feb 24, 2015

cc #899

@l0kod l0kod referenced this issue in alexcrichton/rust Mar 1, 2015
@alexcrichton alexcrichton std: Implement stdio for `std::io`
This is an implementation of RFC 899 and adds stdio functionality to the new
`std::io` module. Details of the API can be found on the RFC, but from a high
level:

* `io::{stdin, stdout, stderr}` constructors are now available. There are also
  `*_raw` variants for unbuffered and unlocked access.
* All handles are globally shared (excluding raw variants).
* The stderr handle is no longer buffered.
* All handles can be explicitly locked (excluding the raw variants).

The `print!` and `println!` machinery has not yet been hooked up to these
streams just yet. The `std::fmt::output` module has also not yet been
implemented as part of this commit.
d4dea1d
@arthurprs

sub, I guess this should be also posted in rust repo

@alexcrichton alexcrichton referenced this issue Mar 5, 2015
Closed

Expand the scope of std::process #941

5 of 7 tasks complete
@alexcrichton
Member

I'm going to close this in favor of #941 now that I've opened it, but thanks for the issue!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment