Hi guys,
what's the reason for the complex pipe handling with sigpipe_handler(),
sigpipe_init() and sigpipe_finish()?
IMHO aborting the read when a SIGCHLD occurs is wrong, as the
pipe may still contain unread data (and data is only read in
sizeof(buf)-1 chunks). Wouldn't it make more sense to s
On 06/06/2011 02:40 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Hi guys,
what's the reason for the complex pipe handling with sigpipe_handler(),
sigpipe_init() and sigpipe_finish()?
The point was to make it more robust:
a) use blocking io instead of spinning on a timeout that will inevitably
be wrong for s
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:35:38AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >IMHO aborting the read when a SIGCHLD occurs is wrong, as the
> >pipe may still contain unread data (and data is only read in
> >sizeof(buf)-1 chunks). Wouldn't it make more sense to simply
> >ignore SIGCHLD and read until an EOF i
On 06/07/2011 10:14 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:35:38AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
IMHO aborting the read when a SIGCHLD occurs is wrong, as the
pipe may still contain unread data (and data is only read in
sizeof(buf)-1 chunks). Wouldn't it make more sense to simpl
