Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello bug-bash readers,
>
> I noticed the following bash bug when using gnulib-tool. The script
> below outputs
>
> foo: line 20: echo: write error: Broken pipe
> foo: line 21: echo: write error: Broken pipe
>
> with bash 3.2.48(5)-release on GNU/Linux, whereas I think
Hi Ralf!
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> > I noticed the following bash bug when using gnulib-tool. The script
> > below outputs
> >
> > foo: line 20: echo: write error: Broken pipe
> > foo: line 21: echo: write error: Broken pipe
> >...
> > Please also note that the above error
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> That may well be, but if SIGPIPE is ignored upon script startup, then
> the shell should not output those error messages upon receiving the
> signal in the first place, no?
When SIGPIPE is ignored then the syscall returns with EPIPE instead.
This is what bash is reporti
Hello Andreas,
* Andreas Schwab wrote on Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:13:18AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > foo: line 20: echo: write error: Broken pipe
> > foo: line 21: echo: write error: Broken pipe
> > Please also note that the above errors occur also when
> > trap ''
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed the following bash bug when using gnulib-tool. The script
> below outputs
>
> foo: line 20: echo: write error: Broken pipe
> foo: line 21: echo: write error: Broken pipe
>
> with bash 3.2.48(5)-release on GNU/Linux, whereas I think it should
Hello bug-bash readers,
I noticed the following bash bug when using gnulib-tool. The script
below outputs
foo: line 20: echo: write error: Broken pipe
foo: line 21: echo: write error: Broken pipe
with bash 3.2.48(5)-release on GNU/Linux, whereas I think it should be
silent. Please note that th
