I'm trying to have a separate console window for my program that is already in a console. How would I be able to open this new console window then output to that specific console?
I've found ways to do it that work in windows using "cconsolelogger", but not for Linux.
I assume that by "new console", you mean a terminal emulator window.
A terminal is a program like any other, so you start it like any other program. The only standard way in C++ to open another program is std::system, which executes a shell command. Here is an example of opening a terminal emulator:
std::system("xterm");
Note that it is not safe to pass arbitrary user provided input into the command, because it is vulnerable to shell injection.
The POSIX standard - that is followed by Linux operating systems in general - provides other, lower level tools to run another executable. In particular the exec family of functions allows executing another program without starting a sub process and without involving the shell.
Maybe you can use popen.
You can choose the program to write command to it, for example:
gp = _popen("C:\Program Files (x86)\gnuplot\bin\pgnuplot.exe", "w");
fprintf(gp, "set term png\n");
I have to write a program that intercepts data from terminal and i have to parse it. After processing when the data, i have to parse it before it goes to stdout.
I can't use tee or commands like prog > file 2>&1 as the program is going to be interactive.
For example :
If the user types ls in the terminal i have to parse it then it should go operating system and then when I get the result after processing I ll have to again parse it before it's displayed in the terminal.
I did my research and I think I can achieve it through pseudo terminal interfaces ( pty ).
Please let me know if there is a better way to achieve it.
I am using cpp and bash and the platform is *nix.
Update:
I can also use libexpect from expect.
I am not sure what do you mean here - you mean interactive program as "working in another terminal communicating with user" or even displaying GUI?
How does it specify the terminal? It is probably important what is program layout here (which program starts which).
If your application uses GUI to communicate with user, then I would simply do it this way:
start bash with sdtin and stdout attached to pipes,
your program reads & writes to it's end's of those pipes, parses data, and reads/writes on it's own stdin&stdout - so it appears on it's terminal.
If you mean controlling different terminal than your application's, it gets though since system generally does not expect program operating on multiple terminals. I don't think it's possible to filter communication between terminal and already working application attached to it. Starting another process spawning another terminal might be an option - to have basically two terminals working in sync. But then you will have to synchronize both processes by some other means (named pipes, network connection or some other IPC).
If you provide more detail on your program I might provide more directed help.
PS Don't tell me that you are writing some terminal keylogger ')
EDIT:
Your program is probably GUI based then - what i would recommend would be something similar to answer linked by banuj.
Best option will probably be to create three pipes, then fork, and in child process assign corresponding ends of pipes to stdin, stdout and stderr. Then child process should exec into shell - probably bash, although I am not sure if other shells would sound better if read out loud ;) Main process will be able to read/write other ends of mentioned pipes, parsing both inputs and outputs to bash and programs it runs.
You could also exec directly to commands user specifies, but that forces you to take over tedious job of a shell - managing current directory, environment variables, job control and so on.
Using above method might however cause some trouble - some programs (usually in security related contexts - eg. su(do) asking for password) will try to bypass stdin/stdout anyway and read directly from terminal device. I am not sure what can you do in such case - programing your own terminal emulator would be an option, but I don't know if you want to go this deep into system programming for this.
If you want some code snippet's, if you don't know how to do above, just ask ;)
I've got a program called pgm1 which create a new process using fork.
Then in this process, I launch a new program (pgm2) using the following command:
execv( exec_path_name, argv ).
But the thing is that with this method I've got both output in the same terminal.
I've been searching for a while ans the only solution i found was this one:
Open a new terminal with a system call
Attach my pgm2 to the new terminal using this soft http://blog.nelhage.com/2011/01/reptyr-attach-a-running-process-to-a-new-terminal/comment-page-1/#comment-27264
So my question is really simple, is there a more simple way to do that ?
Thanks in advance !
PS: Distro - Ubuntu 11.10 32bit
I can think of two possible solutions:
Do The Right Thing(TM) and send your output to a file: Each process can use a different file, providing both clear separation of the output and better record-keeping. As a bonus, you are also bound to see a performance improvement - terminal output is computationally expensive, even nowadays...
Execute a terminal emulator with the proper arguments: Most terminal emulators provide a way to execute a specific program in place of the shell. For example xterm:
$ xterm top
This will launch top in an xterm instance, without a shell. Quiting top also terminates the xterm window.
If your terminal emulator of choice supports this, you can use it simply by modifying the arguments passed to execv(). Of course, in this case you will be actually executing the terminal emulator instead of your program, which will then call your own process.
Keep in mind that, depending on the terminal emulator, any open file descriptors may not be passed correctly to your program - the terminal will at least mangle the standard file descriptors.
I've just installed Pyclewn. It works and shows variables and etc. But it doesn't show my program's output and when my program wants to input something, it doesn't do anything(I can write ":C run output" and it works. but not with standard I/O.
There was something in its documentation: http://pyclewn.sourceforge.net/_static/pyclewn.html
But I didn't understand what it says.
P.S: I've done that. Now I want to map for example to run those commands. but because the "nn" in /dev/pts/nn may vary, I should manually enter the number(see it from the xterm opened). I also have another problem when I map a key to a sequence of gdb commands, it says gdb is busy, I can add ":sleep 100m" between commands and the problem will be soved. but in the documentation it says that I should enable async option. but when I run pyclewn from vim with :Pyclewn command I don't know how to enable the async option.
You should use inferior_tty.py to create a terminal to be used with the program being debugged.
Abridged summary (most relevant bits only) from the FAQ:
:Cshell setsid xterm -e inferior_tty.py &
Determine what the name of the tty to be used is from this newly spawned window, then:
:Cset inferior-tty /dev/pts/nn
Or just start pyclewn from a terminal and it will automatically grab that terminal for input and output.
E.g:
pyclewn -c "main.cc other.h other.cc"
From http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/iostream/cout/:
By default, most systems have their standard output set to the console, where text messages are shown, although this can generally be redirected.
I've never heard of a system where stdout is anything other than a console window, by default or otherwise. I can see how redirecting it might be beneficial in systems where printing is an expensive operation, but that shouldn't be an issue in modern computers, right?
Of course it could be. I may want to redirect standard out to a text file, another process, a socket, whatever.
By default it is the Console, but the are a variety of reasons to redirect it, the most useful (in step with the Unix philosophy) being the redirection of the output of one program to the input of another program. This allows one to create many small, lightweight programs that feed into one another and work as discrete parts of a larger system.
Basically, it's just a simple yet powerful mechanism for sharing data. It is more popular on *nix systems for the reason I mention above, but it applies to Windows as well.
On most systems you can redirect the standard input/output/error to other file descriptors or locations.
For example (on Unix):
./appname > output
Redirects the stdout from appname to a file named output.
./appname 2> errors > output
Redirects stdout to a file named output, and all errors from stderr to a file named errors.
On unix systems you can also have a program open a file descriptor and point it at stdin, such as this:
echo "input" > input
cat input | ./appname
This will cause the program to read from the pipe for stdin.
This is how in unix you can "pipe" various different utilities together to create one larger tool.
find . -type f | ./appname | grep -iv "search"
This will run the find command, and take its output and pipe it into ./appname, then appname's output will be sent to grep's input which then searches for the word "search", displaying just the results that match.
It allows many small utilities to have a very powerful effect.
Think of the >, <, and | like plumbing.
> is like the drain in a sink, it accepts data and stores it where you want to put it. When a shell encounters the > it will open a file.
> file
When the shell sees the above, it will open the file using a standard system call, and remember that file descriptor. In the above case since there is no input it will create an empty file and allow you to type more commands.
banner Hello
This command writes Hello in really big letters to the console, and will cause it to scroll (I am using Unix here since it is what I know best). The output is simply written to standard out. Using a "sink" (>) we can control where the output goes, so
banner Hello > bannerout
will cause all of the data from banner's standard output to be redirected to the file descriptor the shell has opened and thus be written to a file named bannerout.
Pipes work similarly to >'s in that they help control the flow of where the data goes. Pipes however can't write to files, and can only be used to help the flow of data go from one point to another.
For example, here is water flowing through several substations and waste cleaning:
pump --from lake | treatment --cleanse-water | pump | reservoir | pump > glass
The water flows from the lake, through a pipe to the water treatment plant, from the plant back into a pump that moves it to a reservoir, then it is pumped once more into the municipal water pipes and through your sink into your glass.
Notice that the pipes simply connect all of the outputs together, ultimately it ends up in your glass.
It is the same way with commands and processing them in a shell on Linux. It also follows a path to get to an end result.
Now there is one final thing that I hadn't discussed yet in my previous statements, that is the < input character. What it does is read from a file and output it to stdin on programs.
cat < bannerout
Will simply print what was stored in bannerout. This can be used if you have a file you want to process, but don't want to prepend cat <file> because of not wanting to run an extra command in the chain.
So try this:
echo "Hello" > bannerinput
banner < bannerinput
This will first put the string "Hello" in the file bannerinput, and then when your run banner it will read from the file bannerinput.
I hope this helps you understand how redirection and pipping works on Unix (some if not most will apply to Windows as well).
So far all of the answers have been in the context of the thing (shell, whatever) that invokes the program. The program itself can make stdout something other than the terminal. The C standard library provides freopen which lets the programmer redirect stdout in any compliant environment. POSIX provides a number of other mechanisms (popen, fdopen, ...) that gives the programmer even more control. I suspect Windows provides analogous mechanisms.
Any number of things can happen to the three standard file descriptors 0, 1 and 2. Anyone can launch a new process with the file descriptors attached to anything they like.
For instance, GNU screen puts the output into a pipe and allows dynamic reattaching of a session. SSH takes the output and returns it to the other end. And of course all the numerous shell redirectors regularly make use of manipulating the file descriptors.
For a program to have stdout it must be running on a hosted implementation (one with an Operating System), or on a free-standing implementation with extras.
I'm having a hard time figuring such an implementation without a console of some kind, but let's suppose for a moment that Mars Rover has a full OS and is programmed in C (or C++) and doesn't have that console
/* 2001-07-15: JPL: stdout is the headquarters */
puts("Help. I'm stuck.");
might have sent the message to NASA headquarters.
Both Windows and Linux will redirect stdout to a file if you run the program like this:
my_program > some_file
This is the most common case, but many other types of redirection are possible. On Linux, you can redirect stdout to anything that supports the "file descriptor" interface, such as a pipe, socket, file, and various other things.
One simple example of a case where one might want to redirect stdout is when passing the information to another program. The Unix/Linux command ps generates a list of processes that belong to the current user. If this list was long and you wanted to search for a particular process, you could enter
ps | grep thing
which would redirect the stdout of ps to the stdin of grep thing.