On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 04:19:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > >> If SIGPIPE is ignored then test output just stops after generating the >> FATAL message. Oops. > > You mean "If SIGPIPE is not ignored ...", right?
Yes, sorry. >> > To fix the actual failures, we can cease sending "SELECT 1"; it's enough to >> > disconnect immediately. Patch attached. >> >> Perhaps you could use an empty string instead? I feel a bit uneasy >> about passing an undefined object to IPC::Run::run. > > IPC::Run documents the equivalence of undef and '' in this context; search for > "close a child processes stdin" in > http://search.cpan.org/~rbs/IPC-Run-0.78/lib/IPC/Run.pm. Thus, I expect both > spellings to work reliably, and I find "undef" slightly more evocative. Thanks, I missed this bit. No objections to use undef then. -- Michael
