10

I'm working on a retro project and was trying to create a pipe of stdin/out/err in DOS, but I can't find any functions to to this?

For instance the pipe() command from unistd.h isn't present in BorlandC, which I'm using.

Can anyone tell me how to to this? Preferably in C or Batch.

Also, how to pipe stdin/out from the current shell (command.com or 4dos.com) in order to "Skin" the console?

  • Are you aware of the Cygwin project ( cygwin.com ) ? It provides Windows the infrastructure compile and run many GNU programs. Included is a terminal program which has many POSIX features. See also: stackoverflow.com/questions/12468913 – RichF Apr 7 at 12:48
  • I know you are working on a retro project, but if working on a modern Windows system there is powershell.exe. I believe it is fully POSIX compatible and comes with the OS. It is obviously not a retro tool, though. – RichF Apr 7 at 13:13
  • One way to circumvent this, for the skinning part at least, may be the use of a device driver. – Raffzahn Apr 7 at 14:11
  • 1
    @RichF PowerShell is certainly not POSIX-compatible in any way. – Michael Homer Apr 7 at 18:44
  • @MichaelHomer Sorry. I should have been suspicious of the wording at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerShell It says, "PowerShell's developers based the core grammar of the tool on that of the POSIX 1003.2 Korn shell." I've never actually used it. Thank you for correction. // They have the Command Prompt to be "DOS"; why not make the other shell POSIX? – RichF Apr 7 at 19:46
15

MS-DOS doesn't support pipes like Unix does - It does support input and output redirection through its command line processor COMMAND.COM, but that's a different thing.

If you're fine with pure I/O redirection, you should be able to do that using the system() function in C, by providing a command line that has the output redirection (<, >, |) included. Opposed to Unix, you will, however, not be able to have the "piped together" commands run in parallel, but rather only sequentially (which isn't quite what you need to scrape the console of an interactive program) - MS-DOS is not a multitasking system.

  • Ok. The reason I asked was that I just had a long conversation with a guy on another forum, who said that people used to make CLI overlays to command.com, etc back in the day. But this doesn't seem possible with what you just said. – Dacobi Apr 7 at 9:45
  • 3
    Well, you can, with using pure I/O redirection and quite a bit of ado (and people really did that): COMMAND.COM is just (nearly) a program like everything else in MS-DOS. If you do a system ("COMMAND.COM DIR>C:\TMP\DIR.TXT") and later parse dir.txt, you might be able to achieve what you are looking for. But you obviously need to implement any command you want to support by a separate system call. And that obviously won't work well with interactive commands. – tofro Apr 7 at 10:17
  • 1
    @Dacobi Since programms can have child programs, these can act as new shell (CLI) for the user and thus replacing Command.com for most parts (or even be started instead) - still, they can't change the nature of the OS. So what's possible or not will be different from what you'd know from a Unix-alike system. Starting with the problem that DOS programs often not write their output STDOUT, but use means of BIOS or direct screen manipulation. – Raffzahn Apr 7 at 13:25
  • 1
    @DarkDust yes. But TSRs wouldn’t exactly fit the concept of pipes. TSRs didn’t have OS mechanisms to communicate to applications – tofro Apr 7 at 18:40
  • 2
    @tofro: You're right, but I was referring to OPs remark about some guy saying "people used to make CLI overlays to command.com" . – DarkDust Apr 7 at 18:44
17

It seams as if you imply that DOS is kind of an unixoide OS, which it isn't. While Microsoft's goal with MS-DOS 2.0 was to move it toward Unix like operations, for compatibility with Xenix, it never went all the way. Not in internal workings nor API or shell. MS-DOS is a single user, single program OS - with a few 'handmade' exceptions like TSR.

For instance the pipe() command from unistd.h isn't present in BorlandC, which I'm using.

UNISTD is a POSIX definition. DOS isn't a POSIX system. POSIX definitions where made years after DOS got unix alike features.

DOS only implements STDIN/OUT/ERR. They are made as simple file handles (0,1,2) to be read from/writen to and inherited from the parent program.

Can anyone tell me how to to this? Preferably in C or Batch.

Just use redirection one the command line in the usual way via </|/>

Also, how to pipe stdin/out from the current shell (command.com or 4dos.com) in order to "Skin" the console?

You might get a hard time, as DOS can only run a single program at a time. Without two concurrent processes it's just not possible to transfer data between them without having the first terminated before the second is started.

DOS's redirection is more like chaining.

Workings of Redirection in DOS

DOS implements pipeing (redirection to a program) as an application of redirection to files.

When pipeing is used, all output of the first program to STDOUT gets written into a temporary file until the program terminates. Then the next program gets started (after the first is unloaded) and the file written is assigned to STDIN. Then the program terminates, the (input) File gets deleted.

In other words a command line like

TREE C:\ /F | FIND /I ".COM" | SORT 

to display all .COM files with their path on drive C works in sequential steps like this:

TREE C:\ /F >tempfile1
FIND /I ".COM" <tempfile1 >tempfile2
DEL  tempfile1
SORT <tempfile2
DEL tempfile2

From a user perspective the result is the same, but inner workings are complete different (*1).

So unless you spread your programs across multiple DOS machines, you can't come close to Unix behaviour (*2).


I'm working on a retro project and was trying to create a pipe of stdin/out/err in DOS, but I can't find any functions to to this?

See, that's the true lesson of retrocomputing: these old machines and OSes were not the same as today, just in small, slow and with blocky graphics, they where different. And not just between today and back then, but as well between different manufactures and even machines. Backporting ideas isn't about finding the same function, but to work from a complete different angle.

Discovering unknown space with different laws of physic :))


Now, having said all of this and taking the assumption of adding bells and whistles to STDOUT), a clean way to do this would be writing a character driver and assign them as STDIN/OUT when starting command.com. If the driver is (for example) named skinner.dev and the resulting device would be SKINNER, then config.sys needs to contain these two lines (*3):

DEVICE=C:\DRIVER\SKINNER.DEV
SHELL=C:\COMMAND.COM SKINNER 

And from there on, all output to STDOUT is delivered thru your driver - unless redirected that is. Now you may add any kind of framing skins or whatsoever. Keep in mind that the application might not be aware of and for example still assume a 24x80 screen, even if you took some characters off for a beautiful frame. Similar any output bypassing STDOUT, like when using BIOS calls or direkt screen manipulation, may show up at the wrong place (*4). Last but not least, every program opening CON on its own will as well bypass your driver.

A few points to think about may be:

  • Don't forget to make the driver as well handling read requests, as Command.Com requires both ways to go thru the same device.

  • You may as well try to replace the build-in CON driver(*5), this means setting the CON bit in the device attributes word as well as replacing/capturing INT 29h, as DOS does handle CON a bit different. (*6)

  • Adding I/O-Control support would support a clean interface to set the workings during runtime (changing colours or whatsoever it does) with a configuration command supplied by you.

  • Do your users a favour and use Assembly - at least for the driver.

Device drivers can be a lot of fun and are usually way less complicated to write then people tend to assume.

Caveat: Some mechanics only work with DOS 3.1 and higher even though already defined before. This goes especially for monitoring open/close calls.


*1 - Now, when devices are used as targets of a redirection, access is immediate and concurrent. Just they can only be source or destination.

*2 - And even then you may need some file server allowing read while write and plunge in a zillion FLUSH calls to make each output seen.

*3 - For test purpose it may be more appropriate to only load the driver and use redirected STDIN/OUT only via a sub-shell.

*4 - Some of this may be captured by the driver due manipulation of BIOS data and alike - but that will as well lead to a slow creep into machine and OS dependence while at the same time bloating code ever more.

*5 - This would remove some of the possible ways to screw up things for child processes in complex scenarios involving sub-shells as well as redirections with the explicit use of CON. On the down side, you'd have to rewrite all of it's functionality - hopefully compatible with ANSI.SYS which already is one.

*6 - Which BTW would be the better way (when going this route) - get the source for some ANSI.SYS compatible driver like NANSI.SYS and tweek it to support your additional functionality - more work than writing your own, but for sure a great drop in by naming it ANSI.SYS and copying it onto any machine available - not other change needed.

0

Also, how to pipe stdin/out from the current shell (command.com or 4dos.com) in order to "Skin" the console?

If are experienced in assembly language, you may do the following:

You can run the "Skin" program and replace the int 21h vector by your own one. In your own vector you process all int 21h requests that are related to the console.

If some function is not handled by your handler, you use a jmp far instruction to jump to the original interrupt handler. Many DOS device drivers used this method to add additional functionality to a DOS or BIOS interrupt.

You may also call the original int 21h interrupt using pushf followed by call far to the original handler's address.

In addition to functions accessing the console, you would have to handle dup, dup2 and close in your int 21h handler to track which file handles correspond to the console.

Unfortunately, many programs directly access BIOS interrupts int 10h (screen) or int 16h (keyboard). To support such programs, you would have to do the same with these two interrupt handlers.

There were also a lot of programs directly accessing the hardware (e.g. the screen memory at 0B8000h). Unfortunately, before the 80386 there was no method to "skin" such programs. This is why there was no console window in Windows 3.x running in 286 mode but you could only run MS-DOS programs in full screen mode.

(And the method used by 32-bit OSs is anything but easy to implement.)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.