Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim, > >> 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. > > If the writer should terminate first, the reader can still detect the > failure using SIGPIPE and/or SIGCHLD. Since you say that you consider
The above was assuming that SIGPIPE is being ignored. My goal is for the _writer_ to be able to detect write failure due to EPIPE (via gnulib's close_* functions), even when there is no parent child relationship between the reader and writer. > ignoring the signal to be discouraged, these programs should not see > EPIPE anyway. Yes, you also said: > >> Some environments (mis-configured login/csh) have >> resulted in the default SIGPIPE handler being SIG_IGN. > > ... but there are so many other problems that could result from > misconfiguration, such as fd 0/1/2 not being open. I don't think I agree. we should not cater to misconfigured environments. Just mentioning one context in which SIGPIPE should not be ignored. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
