Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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:
No, no, no ;-) That was just explaining my comment that ignoring SIGPIPE is not recommended (in some contexts). > - 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. I'm pretty sure that would be contrary to POSIX.
