On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:36 PM, David Boyce <david.s.bo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Philip Guenther <guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Could you explain why you think that's spurious? Make wanted to write >> "date" to stdout and the write failed. Seems legit to me. ... > Basically in a (sensible and nicely documented) attempt to detect all > errors, make does an explicit close of stdout just before exiting in > order to make one last check for failure modes. However, it makes the > mistake of assuming stdout was open to start with.
Why is that a mistake? It appears you're saying that make should complain about failures to write to stdout for reasons like EIO, ENOSPC, and EOVERFLOW, but *not* for EBADF. Does the POSIX standard specify that that error should be handled differently by make? (Actually, your patch doesn't just ignore EBADF errors: it ignores EPIPE errors, as the ftell() will fail on the pipe. Why is that a good idea?) Philip Guenther _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
