Jim Meyering wrote: >>>>> 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. >>> >>> The above was assuming that SIGPIPE is being ignored. >> >> But if you need it, what's wrong with un-ignoring it? > > [we're getting far afield, but... ]
Not really: if the only reason not to have close_stdout ignore EPIPE is a bug in a fringe shell on a mis-configured system, then: - either you don't care, despite the "trouble to reproduce and diagnose", and you make it fail silently - or you work around it by unignoring SIGPIPE. I'd prefer to have EPIPE ignored, so I can prepare a patch to most coreutils for (2) if you wish. Paolo
