Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Jim, >>> >>>> Imagine a scenario in which the pipe reader is expected always to >>>> be reading, and so the pipe writer can expect that any write failure with >>>> errno==EPIPE indicates the reader has terminated unexpectedly. >>> If the writer should terminate first, the reader can still detect the >>> failure using SIGPIPE and/or SIGCHLD. Since you say that you consider >> >> The above was assuming that SIGPIPE is being ignored. > > But if you need it, what's wrong with un-ignoring it?
[we're getting far afield, but... ] No point in making many of the coreutils programs un-ignore SIGPIPE just to work around a fringe shell (csh) on a mis-configured system. It was enough trouble to reproduce and diagnose ;-)
