[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available

From: Gavin Smith
Subject: Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 19:31:34 +0000

On 25 February 2015 at 16:28, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>> It may think it has successfully found a man page. If you run "./ginfo
>> FiLe-M" does it display anything?
> Yes, it shows this:
>      File: *manpages*,  Node: FiLe-M,  Up: (dir)
>      No manual entry for FiLe-M.
> I think you are right about the man page.  I can get the same result
> as the test expects with this little change:
> --- info/man.c~ 2014-12-30 23:54:02 +0200
> +++ info/man.c  2015-02-25 08:51:11 +0200
> @@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ get_manpage_from_formatter (char *format
>      if (fpipe == 0)
>        return NULL;
>      formatted_page = read_from_fd (fileno (fpipe));
> -    if (pclose (fpipe) == -1)
> +    if (pclose (fpipe) != 0)
>        {
>         if (formatted_page)
>           free (formatted_page);
> However, I don't see why the HAVE_FORK branch should behave
> differently: it doesn't check the exit status of 'man', AFAICS, just
> that the text it returned is non-empty.  And the Unix 'man' also says
> "No manual entry for FiLe-M" in this case.
> Is this perhaps an issue with stdout vs stderr?  The version of 'man'
> I use outputs this message to stdout.  If this is the reason for the
> difference in behavior, then how about adding to the HAVE_FORK branch
> a test of the exit status?  Then having that in the popen branch will
> be justified.

I had the same results as you when I put a "man" executable earlier in
the path that printed a message to stdout (including the test
failures). I've made the change you suggested.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]