2018-01-18 16:05 GMT+01:00 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org>: > Carl Eugen Hoyos (2018-01-18): >> Would you like to elaborate? > > Of course, provided somebody is interested. > > Issuing the following command: > > trap "" SIGPIPE > > will ignore SIGPIPE in the shell and all subsequent programs started > from it.
> It will achieve exactly the result of this patch Dave's patch and your shell command above behave differently here. > in a much cleaner way, without impacting others users. It now terminates with an error message instead of succeeding. Why is that cleaner? >> Maybe you could explain the drawbacks? > > No, I cannot. I only know they exist, because signals on Unix are like > that. In this instance, I consider the burden of the proof to be on the > person who proposes the patch. > > Still, there is always the fact that it changes the behaviour in a > significant way, possibly resulting in process running indefinitely > where they were stopping previously. Why do you think so? The OP has created a very easy to reproduce case where FFmpeg unexpectedly doesn't close its output files, and a patch that fixes this (broken) behaviour. Why do you believe there is an indefinitely running process involved? Carl Eugen _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel