possible in bash?: filter stderr of a prog & send filtered-output out on stderr leaving stdout untouched
Is there a way, in bash, to filter stderr and let the filtered result continue on stderr with the original stdout being output on stdout? with prog being the program to filter, and RE_filt being the filtering expression, conceptually, I wanted to do something like this: $prog >&3 2>&1 |grep -v "$RE_filt" >&2 3>&1 (which of course doesn't work) Is it possible/doable? Tnx! -l
Re: possible in bash?: filter stderr of a prog & send filtered-output out on stderr leaving stdout untouched
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 4:09 PM, L A Walsh wrote: > > Is there a way, in bash, to filter stderr and let the > filtered result continue on stderr with the original > stdout being output on stdout? > > with prog being the program to filter, and RE_filt being the > filtering expression, conceptually, I wanted to do something > like this: > > $prog >&3 2>&1 |grep -v "$RE_filt" >&2 3>&1 > > (which of course doesn't work) > > Is it possible/doable? > > Tnx! > -l > > > > > > http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/047 (search for "stdout intact") -- Visit serverfault.com to get your system administration questions answered.
Re: possible in bash?: filter stderr of a prog & send filtered-output out on stderr leaving stdout untouched
Dennis Williamson wrote: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/047 (search for "stdout intact") Thanks!
Re: possible in bash?: filter stderr of a prog & send filtered-output out on stderr leaving stdout untouched
{ $prog 2>&1 >&3 | grep -v "$RE_filt" >&2; } 3>&1
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
Re: possible in bash?: filter stderr of a prog & send filtered-output out on stderr leaving stdout untouched
Andreas Schwab wrote:
{ $prog 2>&1 >&3 | grep -v "$RE_filt" >&2; } 3>&1
Andreas.
Closer to my last failed case:
( echo -n >&3 $($prog >&3 2>&1 | grep -Pv "$re" >&2 ) ) 3>&1
Had tried not putting $prog in $(), but bash didn't like the parens...
At that point figured it was probably solved and asked onlist...
Thanks for the added input!
-l
Re: Could bash do what make does?
On 6 December 2016 at 00:19, Greg Wooledge wrote: > what evidence? > [for shell scripting builds] > I suppose the evidence that you want is in the very same wikipedia article about make, where it says precisely that shell scripts were used before make came along. However, please remember I am here asking a question. I am not promoting any views about these matters which are secondary to the question. There is no onus on me to prove anything. If you are interested in my views and I doubt you are, you can email me privately. I will not indulge you in further public exchanges no matter how provocative you try to be. "Put up or shut up" indeed.
Re: Could bash do what make does?
There is an onus on you to use the appropriate mailing list. Bug-bash isn't for make-ing your case, bug-bash is for the bugs. Dave Finlay On Dec 6, 2016 15:44, "Robert Durkacz" wrote: On 6 December 2016 at 00:19, Greg Wooledge wrote: > what evidence? > [for shell scripting builds] > I suppose the evidence that you want is in the very same wikipedia article about make, where it says precisely that shell scripts were used before make came along. However, please remember I am here asking a question. I am not promoting any views about these matters which are secondary to the question. There is no onus on me to prove anything. If you are interested in my views and I doubt you are, you can email me privately. I will not indulge you in further public exchanges no matter how provocative you try to be. "Put up or shut up" indeed.
