Reputation: 946
My requirements are simple: start a process, wait for it to finish, then capture and process it's output.
For the longest time I've been using the following:
struct line : public std∷string {
friend std∷istream& operator>> (std∷istream &is, line &l) {
return std∷getline(is, l);
}
};
void capture(std::vector<std::string> &output, const char *command)
{
output.clear();
FILE *f = popen(command, "r");
if(f) {
__gnu_cxx::stdio_filebuf<char> fb(f, ios∷in) ;
std::istream fs(&fb);
std::istream_iterator<line> start(fs), end;
output.insert(output.end(), start, end);
pclose(f);
}
}
And it works really well on single threaded programs.
However, if I call this function from inside a thread, sometimes the popen()
call hangs and never return.
So, as a proof-of-concept I replaced the function for this ugly hack:
void capture(std::vector<std::string> &output, const char *command)
{
output.clear();
std::string c = std::string(command) + " > /tmp/out.txt";
::system(c.c_str());
ifstream fs("/tmp/out.txt", std::ios::in);
output.insert(output.end(), istream_iterator<line>(fs), istream_iterator<line>());
unlink("/tmp/out.txt");
}
It's ugly but works, however it kept me wondering what would be the proper way to capture a process output on a multi-threaded program.
The program runs on linux in a embedded powerquiccII processor.
Upvotes: 0
Views: 1712
Reputation: 249502
See this: popen - locks or not thread safe? and other references do not seem conclusive that popen() needs to be thread-safe, so perhaps since you are using a less-popular platform, your implementation is not. Any chance you can view the source code of the implementation for your platform?
Otherwise, consider creating a new process and waiting upon it. Or hey, stick with the silly system() hack, but do handle its return code!
Upvotes: 2