Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008-08-31 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * lib/close-stream.c (close_stream): Ignore error EPIPE from fclose.
>
> --- lib/close-stream.c.orig 2008-08-31 17:18:56.000000000 +0200
> +++ lib/close-stream.c 2008-08-31 17:14:12.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> /* Close a stream, with nicer error checking than fclose's.
>
> - Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007 Free
> + Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 Free
> Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> @@ -57,14 +57,20 @@
> bool fclose_fail = (fclose (stream) != 0);
>
> /* Return an error indication if there was a previous failure or if
> - fclose failed, with one exception: ignore an fclose failure if
> - there was no previous error, no data remains to be flushed, and
> - fclose failed with EBADF. That can happen when a program like cp
> - is invoked like this `cp a b >&-' (i.e., with standard output
> - closed) and doesn't generate any output (hence no previous error
> - and nothing to be flushed). */
> + fclose failed, with two exceptions:
> + - Ignore an fclose failure if there was no previous error, no data
> + remains to be flushed, and fclose failed with EBADF. That can
> + happen when a program like cp is invoked like this `cp a b >&-'
> + (i.e., with standard output closed) and doesn't generate any
> + output (hence no previous error and nothing to be flushed).
> + - Ignore an fclose failure due to EPIPE. That can happen when a
> + program blocks or ignores SIGPIPE, and the output pipe or socket
> + has no readers now. The EPIPE tells us that we should stop writing
> + to this output. That's what we are doing anyway here, in
> + close_stream. */
>
> - if (prev_fail || (fclose_fail && (some_pending || errno != EBADF)))
> + if (prev_fail
> + || (fclose_fail && (some_pending || errno != EBADF) && errno != EPIPE))
> {
> if (! fclose_fail)
> errno = 0;
I know this condition arises only when ignoring or handling SIGPIPE,
(which should be rather unusual) but even so, I really dislike the idea
of ignoring a write error. Even if the write error would not occur
with slightly less output data, it's still one less _legitimate_ error
that can be reported. If there is an EPIPE error, IMHO, close_stream
must diagnose it.
