digitalmars.D.bugs - errors should go to stderr
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (9/9) Dec 14 2005 That is, all the errors:
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= (2/15) Dec 14 2005 Luckily this is easy to fix.
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (4/6) Dec 14 2005 That is what *you* think :-)
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= (4/5) Dec 14 2005 Yes, I know. I think it's not priority number one on Walters bugfix list...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (4/5) Dec 14 2005 Does Windows NT (2K/XP) have a sane shell ? Great!
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= (8/16) Dec 14 2005 I haven't been using Windows for a while, but AFAIK all WinNT 4/5/...
- Dave (10/15) Dec 14 2005 But they will still output messages 'put' to 'stderr' (even if stderr
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (3/6) Dec 14 2005 I think you mean "have been going", instead of "would go" ;-)
-
Dave
(9/15)
Dec 14 2005
Right - 'have been going'
. I was thinking ahead to when D really tak... -
Stewart Gordon
(16/25)
Dec 15 2005
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= (3/6) Dec 15 2005 I guess I mean that AFAIK DOS/Win9x silently merges stdout and stderr.
- Stewart Gordon (16/23) Dec 15 2005 Wrong. stdout and stderr are distinct streams under all versions of DOS...
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= (4/20) Dec 15 2005 Sorry, didn't know it precisely.
- zwang (2/28) Dec 16 2005 stderr can be redirected using "2>".
- Stewart Gordon (12/37) Dec 16 2005 We're talking about Win9x here. Are you trying to tell us that there's
- Dave (11/26) Dec 15 2005 That was poorly worded.
- Stewart Gordon (12/19) Dec 15 2005 I found it very easy indeed.
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (5/10) Dec 15 2005 It's not a technical problem, the
- Don Clugston (4/17) Dec 14 2005 What about pragma(msg, ...)?
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (5/8) Dec 14 2005 For GDC it's simple, since stuff on stdout gets sent to the assembler ?
- Derek Parnell (8/18) Dec 14 2005 What does 'stderr' stand for? ... Oh, Standard Error, the place where er...
- Sean Kelly (3/15) Dec 16 2005 I wouldn't call it a showstopper, but... this is now fixed in Ares.
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (4/5) Dec 16 2005 For GDC it used to be (as it broke -pipe), but maybe it isn't for DMD.
-
kris
(2/9)
Dec 16 2005
And it was never an issue in Mango
That is, all the errors:
1) DMD errors and warnings. (has been fixed in GDC already)
http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz
2) Phobos errors and exceptions.
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2001
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3170
Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.
Another 1.0 showstopper...
--anders
Dec 14 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:
That is, all the errors:
1) DMD errors and warnings. (has been fixed in GDC already)
http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz
2) Phobos errors and exceptions.
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2001
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3170
Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.
Another 1.0 showstopper...
--anders
Luckily this is easy to fix.
Dec 14 2005
Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.Luckily this is easy to fix.That is what *you* think :-) It's been several years since this particular bug was first reported. --anders
Dec 14 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:It's been several years since this particular bug was first reported.Yes, I know. I think it's not priority number one on Walters bugfix list since (AFAIK) Walter develops DMD mainly on Windows platform. Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.
Dec 14 2005
Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.Does Windows NT (2K/XP) have a sane shell ? Great! As I recall it Windows 9x also had Unicode issues... --anders
Dec 14 2005
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= <jmjmak utu.fi.invalid> Anders F Björklund wrote:Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:I haven't been using Windows for a while, but AFAIK all WinNT 4/5/... are aware of stderr and stderr redirection. Even DOSes work fine with the help of proprietary extensions (4DOS) or an antificial GNU environment (DJGPP, Cygwin, ...)Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.Does Windows NT (2K/XP) have a sane shell ? Great!As I recall it Windows 9x also had Unicode issues...I think Windows 9x console doesn't support anything else than 8-bit code pages. :( But that's one big reason why I'm using Linux ;)
Dec 14 2005
In article <dnp8l1$11p8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= says...Anders F Björklund wrote:But they will still output messages 'put' to 'stderr' (even if stderr redirection and such is not fully supported), correct? If so IMO there's no good reason for not changing this behaviour just because D needs to support Win9X. (I mean, forget the "version (Win9X)" type of stuff and just make the change universally). I agree, this really needs to be changed. All of the Linux folks and half the Windows folks would go nuts seeing 'error' information put to stdout, especially from the library routines.It's been several years since this particular bug was first reported.Yes, I know. I think it's not priority number one on Walters bugfix list since (AFAIK) Walter develops DMD mainly on Windows platform. Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.
Dec 14 2005
Dave wrote:I agree, this really needs to be changed. All of the Linux folks and half the Windows folks would go nuts seeing 'error' information put to stdout, especially from the library routines.I think you mean "have been going", instead of "would go" ;-) --anders
Dec 14 2005
In article <dnq15l$1ptt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...Dave wrote:Right - 'have been going' <g>. I was thinking ahead to when D really takes off and a bunch of unsuspecting newbies first notice this ... Of course, if errors keep going through stdout, it may never take off ;) At first I accepted it as something that would quickly be taken care of, but now that it hasn't, it's really starting to bug me.. As you said, this "is just plain wrong". - daveI agree, this really needs to be changed. All of the Linux folks and half the Windows folks would go nuts seeing 'error' information put to stdout, especially from the library routines.I think you mean "have been going", instead of "would go" ;-) --anders
Dec 14 2005
Dave wrote:In article <dnp8l1$11p8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= says...What do you mean by this?Anders F Björklund wrote: Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.But they will still output messages 'put' to 'stderr' (even if stderr redirection and such is not fully supported), correct? If so IMO there's no good reason for not changing this behaviour just because D needs to support Win9X. (I mean, forget the "version (Win9X)" type of stuff and just make the change universally).<snip> How can preventing anybody from _not_ redirecting errors along with normal output possibly constitute supporting Win9x? Your thought process makes little or no sense to me. See http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/28449 Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Dec 15 2005
Stewart Gordon wrote:I guess I mean that AFAIK DOS/Win9x silently merges stdout and stderr. Therefore it's very hard to redirect only the other one of them.What do you mean by this?Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.
Dec 15 2005
Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:Stewart Gordon wrote:Wrong. stdout and stderr are distinct streams under all versions of DOS and Win32 I've seen. The only difference is that, using built-in shell features, you can redirect only stdout and not stderr. But you can redirect stderr using a third-party tool, e.g. http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/1518 Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.I guess I mean that AFAIK DOS/Win9x silently merges stdout and stderr. Therefore it's very hard to redirect only the other one of them.What do you mean by this?Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.
Dec 15 2005
Stewart Gordon wrote:Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:Sorry, didn't know it precisely. Apparently this all means that Walter really should take a closer look at the patch you submitted previously.Stewart Gordon wrote:Wrong. stdout and stderr are distinct streams under all versions of DOS and Win32 I've seen.I guess I mean that AFAIK DOS/Win9x silently merges stdout and stderr. Therefore it's very hard to redirect only the other one of them.What do you mean by this?Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.
Dec 15 2005
Stewart Gordon wrote:Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:stderr can be redirected using "2>".Stewart Gordon wrote:Wrong. stdout and stderr are distinct streams under all versions of DOS and Win32 I've seen. The only difference is that, using built-in shell features, you can redirect only stdout and not stderr. But you can redirect stderr using a third-party tool, e.g. http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/1518 Stewart.I guess I mean that AFAIK DOS/Win9x silently merges stdout and stderr. Therefore it's very hard to redirect only the other one of them.What do you mean by this?Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.
Dec 16 2005
zwang wrote:Stewart Gordon wrote:We're talking about Win9x here. Are you trying to tell us that there's a version of Win9x in which this works? Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:stderr can be redirected using "2>".Stewart Gordon wrote:Wrong. stdout and stderr are distinct streams under all versions of DOS and Win32 I've seen. The only difference is that, using built-in shell features, you can redirect only stdout and not stderr. But you can redirect stderr using a third-party tool, e.g. http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/1518 Stewart.I guess I mean that AFAIK DOS/Win9x silently merges stdout and stderr. Therefore it's very hard to redirect only the other one of them.What do you mean by this?Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.
Dec 16 2005
In article <dnrhaq$2qo0$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...Dave wrote:That was poorly worded. What I meant was simply that if something like fprintf(stderr,"%.*s\n","someErrorMessage"); still makes it out to the console (which it does), then Win9X shell features not supporting redirection of stderr should not be an issue in making a simple universal change. By universal, I mean w/o regard to Win9X, i.e.: don't version code so a D program running on Win9X would output errors to stdout (so it could be redirected) and stderr everywhere else. Probably still not worded ideally, but better? <g>In article <dnp8l1$11p8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jari-Matti_M=E4kel=E4?= says...What do you mean by this?Anders F Björklund wrote: Windows 9x and DOSes do not fully support stderr.But they will still output messages 'put' to 'stderr' (even if stderr redirection and such is not fully supported), correct? If so IMO there's no good reason for not changing this behaviour just because D needs to support Win9X. (I mean, forget the "version (Win9X)" type of stuff and just make the change universally).<snip> How can preventing anybody from _not_ redirecting errors along with normal output possibly constitute supporting Win9x? Your thought process makes little or no sense to me. See
Dec 15 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:Jari-Matti Mäkelä wrote:I found it very easy indeed. http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/4368 Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.Luckily this is easy to fix.That is what *you* think :-)
Dec 15 2005
Stewart Gordon wrote:It's not a technical problem, the trick is getting it into DMD... i.e. getting it past Walter ? --andersI found it very easy indeed.Luckily this is easy to fix.That is what *you* think :-)
Dec 15 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:
That is, all the errors:
1) DMD errors and warnings. (has been fixed in GDC already)
http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz
2) Phobos errors and exceptions.
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2001
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3170
Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.
Another 1.0 showstopper...
--anders
What about pragma(msg, ...)?
Maybe it doesn't matter, it's currently unspecified whether it does
anything at all.
Dec 14 2005
Don Clugston wrote:What about pragma(msg, ...)? Maybe it doesn't matter, it's currently unspecified whether it does anything at all.For GDC it's simple, since stuff on stdout gets sent to the assembler ? (This why the old DMD behaviour broke all builds with "gdc -pipe", BTW) So pragma(msg, ...) also goes on stderr. Same as with #warning, for C ? --anders
Dec 14 2005
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:31:59 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:
That is, all the errors:
1) DMD errors and warnings. (has been fixed in GDC already)
http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz
2) Phobos errors and exceptions.
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2001
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3170
Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.
What does 'stderr' stand for? ... Oh, Standard Error, the place where error
messages are supposed to go to ... yep its just plain wrong then.
--
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
15/12/2005 10:53:06 AM
Dec 14 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote:
That is, all the errors:
1) DMD errors and warnings. (has been fixed in GDC already)
http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz
2) Phobos errors and exceptions.
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/2001
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/3170
Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*.
Another 1.0 showstopper...
I wouldn't call it a showstopper, but... this is now fixed in Ares.
Sean
Dec 16 2005
Sean Kelly wrote:I wouldn't call it a showstopper, but... this is now fixed in Ares.For GDC it used to be (as it broke -pipe), but maybe it isn't for DMD. Still annoying, though. --anders
Dec 16 2005
Sean Kelly wrote:Anders F Björklund wrote:And it was never an issue in Mango <g>Currently they are printed to stdout, which is just plain *wrong*. Another 1.0 showstopper...I wouldn't call it a showstopper, but... this is now fixed in Ares.
Dec 16 2005