Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Paul Eggert on 9/29/2006 11:38 AM:
>>
>> I like the basic idea. As I understand it this affects only programs
>> that issue "warnings" (i.e., they output to stderr but then continue
>> without affecting the exit status) but it's useful for that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paul Eggert on 9/29/2006 11:38 AM:
>
> I like the basic idea. As I understand it this affects only programs
> that issue "warnings" (i.e., they output to stderr but then continue
> without affecting the exit status) but it's useful for t
Paul Eggert wrote:
> As I understand it this affects only programs
> that issue "warnings" (i.e., they output to stderr but then continue
> without affecting the exit status)
Yes, exactly. xgettext is such a program. Or also GNU tar, when
invoked as "tar xOvf tarfile somefile-in-it".
> However, w
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + /* Close standard error. This is simpler than fwriteerror_no_ebadf,
> because
> + upon failure we don't need an errno - all we can do at this point is to
> + set an exit status. */
> + errno = 0;
> + if (ferror (stderr) || fflush (st
Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
> Hi Bruno,
>
> I like the idea, but I've never worried about this case on the principle
> that if a program is already writing to stderr, it's usually because
> it's going to exit nonzero anyway.
M4 is an example of an exception - it can write to stderr wi
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Paul and Jim,
>
> The closeout module currently ignores write failures on stderr.
> This patch makes it report failures on stderr through an exit status.
Hi Bruno,
I like the idea, but I've never worried about this case on the principle
that if a progr
