Re: How to get bash to shut up about SIGPIPE?

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
Date: May 2, 2005, 23:17 UTC
Message-ID: <20050502231743.GL20818@pasky.ji.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20050430110410.GA25322@lsrfire.ath.cx>

Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 01:04:10PM CEST, I got a letter where Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> told me that...

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:29:22PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Linus replied to pj:
> > > > Code Sample 2:
> > > > ...
> > > Didn't change anything for me. Same thing.
> > 
> > I don't believe you did what I did.
> > 
> > The source code for bash, both 2.x and 3.x versions, clearly displays a
> > simpler error message (no line number or redisplay of your script
> > commands) in the case that you set a trap.  And I tested both shells on
> > a multiprocessor, to verify that they behaved as I expected, running
> > these silly little scripts.
> 
> I don't have a multiprocessor and I see the same.  Are you sure it's SMP
> dependant?
> 
> Your solution (trapping _inside_ the job, too) works for me, btw.  Here's
> a patch for cg-log that reduces the clutter to two "Broken pipe" lines
> (pun not intended).

Could you elaborate on how exactly is it supposed to help? I see identical behaviour with the traps and without them (UP, bash-2.05b).

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor