WAD TPIPE.EXE has stopped working

#1
Interrupting this command with the console's "X" causes "TPIPE.EXE has stopped working (et c.)"

Code:
(do x=1000001 to 1008389 ( echo %x %@repeat[x,990] ) ) | tpipe /simple=34
 
#8
It does have a control handler. Won't help for this (somewhat contrived?) instance.

It'll also be a lot faster to redirect output to a file, and then have TPIPE read the file.
TPIPE.EXE doesn't import SetConsoleCtrlHandler().

Writing to a file first is only a tad faster (and leaves an extra file hanging around).
Code:
v:\> timer & (do x=1000001 to 1008389 ( echo %x %@repeat[x,990] ) ) | tpipe /simple=34 > nul & timer
Timer 1 on: 22:33:15
Timer 1 off: 22:33:17  Elapsed: 0:00:02.85
 
v:\> timer & (do x=1000001 to 1008389 ( echo %x %@repeat[x,990] ) ) > cat1.txt & tpipe /input=cat1.txt /simple=34 > nul & timer
Timer 1 on: 22:34:36
Timer 1 off: 22:34:39  Elapsed: 0:00:02.62
And you also get "TPIPE.EXE has stopped working" when you try to interrupt the likes of:
Code:
tpipe /input=cat1.txt /simple=34
 
#11
As it happens, I have the source code for TPIPE.EXE, and it definitely does set a console control handler. But it's irrelevant in your example, because you're killing a different process.
I'm only reporting what I see.
Code:
v:\> dumpbin /imports g:\tc14\TPipe.exe | grep -i console
                  19A GetConsoleCP
                  524 WriteConsoleW
                  1AC GetConsoleMode
What other process? If I use the Start\Run dialog to execute "g:\tc14\tpipe.exe /input=v:\tac1.txt /simple=34" I cannot interrupt it without getting "TPIPE.EXE has stopped working". IMHO, that should never happen (or be called WAD).
 

rconn

Administrator
Staff member
May 14, 2008
10,412
95
#13
If I use the Start\Run dialog to execute "g:\tc14\tpipe.exe /input=v:\tac1.txt /simple=34" I cannot interrupt it without getting "TPIPE.EXE has stopped working". IMHO, that should never happen (or be called WAD).
I agree, but I also can't do anything about it. I've already passed it on to the developers, but I don't think it's significant enough to spend much time worrying about.
 
#14
I agree, but I also can't do anything about it. I've already passed it on to the developers, but I don't think it's significant enough to spend much time worrying about.
Hmmm! I think not being able to interrupt such a program is very significant. I hope they agree.

P.S., I was hoping you'd respond to "A question for Rex" in the plugins forum.