Reputation: 609
EDIT: The solution is
int c1=dup2(pipes[0][1],STDOUT_FILENO);
int c2=dup2(pipes[1][0],STDIN_FILENO);
setvbuf(stdout,NULL,_IONBF,0);
It is SETVBUF to set stdout to be non-buffered. Even though I was printing the newline character if the destination is not an actual screen, I guess, it becomes buffered.
EDIT: When I put fflush(stdout) after LINE 1 and fflush(fout) after LINE 4 it works as expected. However, it does not work without the fflush(stdout) after LINE 1. The problem is that I would not be able to put fflush in the program which I am planning to run.
I am trying to start another program from my process. I don't have access to its code but I know it uses stdin and stdout for user interaction. I am trying to start that program by creating 2 pipes, fork-ing and redirecting the child's stdin/stdout to the proper pipe ends. The points is that the parent should be able communicate with the child via file descriptors, while its stdin/stdout should be intact. The POPEN syscall only opens unidirectional pipe. The following code almost works.
There are 4 lines marked as LINE 1..4.
LINE 1 is child sending to pipe, LINE 2 is child receiving from pipe, LINE 3 is parent sending to pipe, LINE 4 is parent receiving from pipe,
This is just a toy example to make sure things work. The issue is that is all 4 lines LINE1..4 are uncommented the output I see on the terminal is
PARENT1: -1
FD: 1 0 4 5 0 1
DEBUG1: 0
DEBUG2: 0
While if LINE 1 and LINE 3 are uncommented only I see a continuous stream of data. Same happens if if only LINE 2 and LINE 4 are uncommented. However, I want a full bidirectional communication. Also adding the commented SLEEP does not change the behavior.
What could be the issue here. I wonder why is there no bidirectional POPEN.
int pid;
int pipes[2][2];
pipe(pipes[0]);
pipe(pipes[1]);
pid=fork();
if(pid==0)
{
//usleep(1000000);
close(pipes[0][0]);
close(pipes[1][1]);
int c1=dup2(pipes[0][1],STDOUT_FILENO);
int c2=dup2(pipes[1][0],STDIN_FILENO);
//int c2=dup2(STDIN_FILENO,pipes[1][0]);
fprintf(stderr,"FD: %d %d %d %d %d %d\n",c1,c2,pipes[0][1],pipes[1][0],STDIN_FILENO,STDOUT_FILENO);
//FILE*fout=fdopen(pipes[0][1],"w");
//FILE*fin =fdopen(pipes[1][0],"r");
while(1)
{
static int c1=0;
fprintf(stderr,"DEBUG1: %d\n",c1);
printf("%d\n",c1); // LINE 1
fprintf(stderr,"DEBUG2: %d\n",c1);
scanf("%d",&c1); // LINE 2
fprintf(stderr,"DEBUG3: %d\n",c1);
c1++;
}
//fclose(fout);
//fclose(fin);
return 0;
}
close(pipes[0][1]);
close(pipes[1][0]);
char buffer[100];
FILE*fin=fdopen(pipes[0][0],"r");
FILE*fout=fdopen(pipes[1][1],"w");
while(1)
{
int c1=-1;
printf("PARENT1: %d\n",c1);
fscanf(fin,"%d",&c1); // LINE 3
printf("Recv: %d\n",c1);
fprintf(fout,"%d\n",c1+1); // LINE 4
printf("PARENT3: %d\n",c1+1);
}
fclose(fin);
fclose(fout);
Upvotes: 3
Views: 17580
Reputation: 2179
Your code is quite long so I'm not sure that I have understand everything but why you don't use select ? Do you want to redirect the output of the child in a tird process or use it in your parent process ?
The following exemple is with cat in the child process.
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
pid_t pid;
int p[2];
pipe(p);
pid = fork();
if (pid == 0)
{
dup2(p[1], 1); // redirect the output (STDOUT to the pipe)
close(p[0]);
execlp("cat", "cat", NULL);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
else
{
close(p[1]);
fd_set rfds;
char buffer[10] = {0};
while (1)
{
FD_ZERO(&rfds);
FD_SET(p[0], &rfds);
select(p[0] + 1, &rfds, NULL, NULL, NULL); //wait for changes on p[0]
if(FD_ISSET(p[0], &rfds))
{
int ret = 0;
while ((ret = read(p[0], buffer, 10)) > 0) //read on the pipe
{
write(1, buffer, ret); //display the result
memset(buffer, 0, 10);
}
}
}
}
}
Upvotes: 1