From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Underwood Subject: Re: Three major questions. Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:28:19 -0500 Sender: linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030913072819.GU2359@dbz.icequake.net> References: <3F607F7E.4000708@aknet.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F607F7E.4000708@aknet.ru> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 05:58:22PM +0400, Stas Sergeev wrote: > Hello. > > Ryan Underwood wrote: > >>What dosemu version is this? There was an isatty() check added > >>recently (but not *very* recently), see parser.y.in:1284. It > >>supposed to fail if you are trying to use a virtual com port on a > >>redirected stdio, so I don't think this way still works. Or is > >>it? > >This was with 1.0.2 stable IIRC. > OK, even in this case I can't imagine > how this could work. Dosemu assumes that > this is a tty in all the places around. > For example it does > strcpy(sptr->dev, ttyname(0)) > which leads to a SIGSEGV for apparent > reasons in case stdio is redirected. > That was the point of adding an isatty() > check at first place. > Then it uses ioctl() for obtaining a serial > port status. ioctl'ing socket will simply > fail so the status will always be bogus. > So actually I don't think this could ever > work. There was a bug reports filled on SF > that this doesn't work and segfaults, and > then it was prohibited with an isatty() check > and the better alternative of using a > pseudo-tty's was added instead. > > So it would be really usefull if you provide > more info on how exactly have you done that > and avoided all the underwater stones, and > also how to do that with the recent dosemus. Sure, I'll try to put a little documentation together when I have some spare time. -- Ryan Underwood, , icq=10317253