Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That doesn't sound like much of a real problem, but if it is, this
>> looks to me like a band-aid that doesn't solve things; it'd cut down
>> the number of bogus messages without eliminating them.
>
> This I don't understand. If I do the output with one `echo', with sane
> shells
That's the part I'm worried about. :-)
> that will cause exactly one `write',
Aren't they often buffered, if the string is long enough?
But I see your point: I probably didn't fully understand the problem.
> I'm merely pondering whether to make the ChangeLog
> entry read
> * gnulib-tool (func_version): Create output all at once, to
> avoid triggering unnecessary SIGPIPEs, in case the caller traps
> it.
> or
> * gnulib-tool (func_version): Create output all at once.
How about
* gnulib-tool (func_version): Create output all at once. This
may help avoid triggering unnecessary SIGPIPEs, and at any
rate it doesn't hurt.
