On 2021-06-29 14:11:45 +0100, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > 2021-06-29 09:49:40 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group: > [...] > > > If in general, then forget it - the users would lynch you (you'd probably > > > suicide first) if you successfully caused that to happen. > > > > No they wouldn't. The only reason to set SIGPIPE to be ignored is > > because you want EPIPE error conditions to be diagnosed instead of > > causing the process to terminate. > [...] > > Should SIGPIPE cause the *shell* process to terminate by the way > when a builtin tries to write to a broken pipe (the reverse > problem of the one being discussed here)?
Yes, but this is not specific to builtins (assuming the command fails on a broken pipe). I would expect ( trap '' PIPE set -e while true; do pwd 2> /dev/null; done ) be something similar to "yes", but with the working directory on stdout instead of "yes". > ( > sleep 1 > set +o errexit -o xtrace > pwd > pwd > ) | : > > Calls pwd only once with most shell implementations (all those > where pwd is builtin). > > Is that allowed? Since POSIX doesn't require to ignore or trap SIGPIPE before executing a builtin, I would say that it is the expected behavior with builtins. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
