You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The behavior of libc::isatty() seems to depend on whether cargo run is used (as opposed to just running the binary in target in the latest nightly (2016-03-24). For example, with the following code:
When run with the 2016-03-23 nightly, it prints out fileno: 0, isatty: 1 (whether run with cargo run or directly from the binary). However, with the 2016-03-24 nightly, it prints out fileno: 0, isatty: 1 when run directly from the binary and fileno: 0, isatty: 0 when run with cargo run. This leads me to believe that the difference might be caused by some change in cargo in dealing with standard input. Obviously a workaround is just not to use cargo run, but I'm curious about whether the previous behavior might be worth restoring at some point in the future.
I tried to look through the recent commits to see if I could track down where the change occurred, but unfortunately had no luck. Sorry about not being able to point somewhere specific in the code!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The behavior of
libc::isatty()
seems to depend on whethercargo run
is used (as opposed to just running the binary intarget
in the latest nightly (2016-03-24). For example, with the following code:When run with the 2016-03-23 nightly, it prints out
fileno: 0, isatty: 1
(whether run withcargo run
or directly from the binary). However, with the 2016-03-24 nightly, it prints outfileno: 0, isatty: 1
when run directly from the binary andfileno: 0, isatty: 0
when run withcargo run
. This leads me to believe that the difference might be caused by some change in cargo in dealing with standard input. Obviously a workaround is just not to usecargo run
, but I'm curious about whether the previous behavior might be worth restoring at some point in the future.I tried to look through the recent commits to see if I could track down where the change occurred, but unfortunately had no luck. Sorry about not being able to point somewhere specific in the code!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: