Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:01:14PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>>> How about
>>>>
>>>> die("BUG: another thread changed SIGPIPE handling behind my
>>>> back!");
>>>>
>>>> to make it easier to find and fix such problems?
>>>
>>> You mean for the "should never happen" bit, not the first part, right? I
>>> actually wonder if we should simply exit(141) in the first place. That
>>> is shell exit-code for SIGPIPE death already (so it's what our
>>> run_command would show us, and what anybody running us through shell
>>> would see).
>>
>> Yes, for the "should never happen" part.
[...]
> I don't mind adding a "BUG: " message like you described, but we should
> still try to exit(141) as the backup, since that is the shell-equivalent
> code to the SIGPIPE signal death.
If you want. :)
I think caring about graceful degradation of behavior in the case of
an assertion failure is overengineering, but it's mostly harmless.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
