Re: [RFC/PATCH] avoid SIGPIPE warnings for aliases

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 10, 2013, 21:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20130110213937.GB26138@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vbocw23fq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:22:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Maybe the right rule is "if we are using the shell to execute, do not
> > mention SIGPIPE"? It seems a little iffy at first, but:
> >
> >   1. It tends to coincide with direct use of internal tools versus
> >      external tools.
> >
> >   2. We do not reliably get SIGPIPE there, anyway, since most shells
> >      will convert it into exit code 141 before we see it.
> >
> > I.e., something like:
> 
> Hmph.  That may be a good heuristics, but I wonder if we also want
> to special case WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) == 141 to
> pretend as if nothing went wrong, when ignore_sigpipe is in effect?

We could, but I don't see much point. There is very little to gain (because nobody is complaining about the exit code, only the message), and we might possibly fail to propagate an error condition (unlikely, but more serious consequences). To be honest, I am having doubts about touching it at all. I had to really work to provoke the error without setting SHELL_PATH=zsh, so I am worried that we are getting worked up over something that just doesn't happen in practice. And I am not sure that setting SHELL_PATH=zsh is a sane thing (I only knew about it because Bart mentioned it he was using zsh).

Bart, do you actually set up SHELL_PATH like that? Is /bin/sh on your system zsh? If the latter, I wonder if this is actually a bug in zsh.

-Peff