On onsdag, januari 30, 2002, at 07:47 , Nicholas Clark wrote:

>  On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:24:11PM +0200, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 04:02:01PM +0100, Arthur Bergman wrote:
> 
> >> 2) libs/warning
> >> error with regard to files opened in a certain mode, should we skip 
> >> this test since we know it is failing?
> >
> > I never understood why are we still getting this error-- I thought
> > it was bound to broken/different implementation of *stdio* in certain
> > platforms, and now in the shiny new era of perlio...?  Nick?
> 
>  You were meaning Nick I-S, but I'll express an opinion
> > In case someone is wondering, this the pp_hot warning:
> 
> 
> > ########
> > # pp_hot.c [pp_print]
>                ^^^^^^^^
>  we're testing this code with the prints to STDIN, and something 
>  completely
>  different with the <>
> 
> > use warnings 'io' ;
> > print STDIN "anc";
> > print <STDOUT>;
> > print <STDERR>;
> > open(FOO, ">&STDOUT") and print <FOO>;
> > print getc(STDERR);
> > print getc(FOO);
> 
>  code which has no references to STD anything
> 
> > ####################################################################
> > # The next test is known to fail on some systems (Linux+old glibc, #
> > # some *BSDs (including Mac OS X and NeXT), among others.          #
> > # We skip it for now (on the grounds that it is "just" a warning). #
> > ####################################################################
> > #read(FOO,$_,1);
> > no warnings 'io' ;
> > print STDIN "anc";
> > EXPECT
> > Filehandle STDIN opened only for input at - line 3.
> > Filehandle STDOUT opened only for output at - line 4.
> > Filehandle STDERR opened only for output at - line 5.
> > Filehandle FOO opened only for output at - line 6.
> > Filehandle STDERR opened only for output at - line 7.
> > Filehandle FOO opened only for output at - line 8.
> 
>  And it transpires that STDOUT is read/write on FreeBSD (and maybe some 
>  other
>  places) so the code as written is an unintended bit of non-portability.
> 
>  I vote that we re-write it to open a temporary file for input, and then
>  try to print to that, and remove all reference to STDIN.
>  Split out the <> reading tests to another test, which I think is for
>  do_readline (which is actually in pp_hot.c)
> 
>  If this is not thought to be a bad way I'll write a patch.
>  And "live dangerously" and reinstate the skipped read which I believe is
>  due to expecting STDOUT to be write only.
> 
> 

Sounds like a good plan, if the read/write ness of STDOUT should be 
tested, it shouldn't be for normal warnings.

Arthur