Use fd 3 instead of hijacking stdout #11812
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
3 tasks
3 tasks
|
this was a valuable learning and research effort but is unlikely to proceed in the current form |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
After starting with #11748 we found that we didn't like how we were hijacking stdout/stderr. So instead, let's just use file descriptor 3 that way we can still depend on stdout/stderr for their correct purposes.
ref: A simple producer/consumer example
ref: A simple Python example
ref: Is it safe to use fd 3
This is still in POC territory, still missing the fix for:
Resolves #11748
Depends on #11862
Depends on #11865
Checklist - did you ...
newsdirectory (using the template) for the next release's release notes?