|
From: | FERRIEUX Alexandre - IMT/OLN |
Subject: | Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH] |
Date: | Sat, 25 Mar 2017 15:48:27 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111113 Thunderbird/8.0 |
On 25/03/2017 15:39, Andrew J. Schorr wrote:
So the SIGPIPE should be visible in the strace output, regardless of the fact that gawk is ignoring it, and regardless of the exit status. I agree that exiting with 0 success status is a bit deceptive, but I'm less convinced that we need to mirror the untrapped SIGPIPE 141 exit status...
Ah yes, what I do is strace -e trace=exit_group, looking at the exit statuses. That is a natural method since all signals are not lethal, so looking at them in strace output is more complex. Exit_group is called just once ;-)In any case, consider the timeline: old gawk gave a 141 due to the absence of any handler; new gawk (for reasons not entirely clear to me) decides that default handlers are not good enough and intercepts SIGPIPE. It is trivial to make this transparent by writing "exit(128+EPIPE)". What's the point of sticking to a dumb exit(0) or exit(1) ?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |