From: Petr Baudis Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 23:17:43 GMT Subject: Re: How to get bash to shut up about SIGPIPE? 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 told me that... > 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