> > An easy way to reproduce it is to launch a script with: " moo() { echo
> > "ok";}; moo >(true)", you'll see an "ok" in your bash terminal and a
> > subprocess will be blocked in an open syscall. The fact that we are seeing
> > this "ok" means that the output of the parent process was never redi
> An easy way to reproduce it is to launch a script with: " moo() { echo
> "ok";}; moo >(true)", you'll see an "ok" in your bash terminal and a
> subprocess will be blocked in an open syscall. The fact that we are seeing
> this "ok" means that the output of the parent process was never redirected t
Hi everyone,
Actually, there is another bug when using named pipes, which might be related
to my previous patch.
When using named pipe to write from the parent to the child process, the child
process is blocking in the open syscall of process_substitute()
(http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash
