On 10/11/10 18:56, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/10/10 08:07, Pádraig Brady wrote: > >> BTW here are my notes on some possible changes in this area: >> >> `dd conv=sync` seems to do the wrong thing with pipes. >> I.E. it pads out short reads. Why would one ever want that? > > Nobody ever wants it but (as you note) it's required by the > standard. > >> Should sync for pipes imply fullblock? > > I think that would be a good idea, but it should be done only > if POSIXLY_CORRECT is not set, since it contradicts the standard. > >> Should sync for pipes without fullblock give a warning? > > I would say "no". If POSIXLY_CORRECT, the warning would arguably > violate the standard. If not, there's no need for a warning.
Agreed on all the above. > >> Should specifying a count (and bs I suppose) without fullblock >> when reading from pipes give a warning? > > No, for the same reason. Or maybe give the warning when POSIXLY_CORRECT was not set? > > Do you have time to implement this change? If not, I suppose > I could look into it. It shouldn't be that hard. The hardest > part would be the documentation. > > Regardless of whether we make such a change, we should document > the issue, as this is a common problem. I'll look into it at some stage but not soon. Feel free do it if you like. cheers, Pádraig.
