Jim Meyering wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jim, >> >>> Imagine a scenario in which the pipe reader is expected always to >>> be reading, and so the pipe writer can expect that any write failure with >>> errno==EPIPE indicates the reader has terminated unexpectedly. >> If the writer should terminate first, the reader can still detect the >> failure using SIGPIPE and/or SIGCHLD. Since you say that you consider > > The above was assuming that SIGPIPE is being ignored.
But if you need it, what's wrong with un-ignoring it? Paolo
