Re: [AC 21.5] Prevent SIGPIPE in deactivate_process
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Mike Kupfer writes:
> I don't see a huge difference here, either, but then I don't like either
> choice. I think we can do better with EPIPE. It's true that unprepared
> code won't do all the cleanup that we want, but I expect there would be
> some sort of error passed back to the user.
Yeah, probably, but I don't see how that's any better that what we
currently have.
It's better because it makes a crash less likely. Though your comment
about resource leaks being harder to troubleshoot is giving me pause.
I'll want to think about that some more.
And you still need a *global* ignore on the SIGPIPE.
No, the Lstream code can ignore SIGPIPE just when writing. Though I
wouldn't necessarily object to a global ignore of SIGPIPE.
> Or are there nasty side effects from failing to do proper
cleanup
> that I'm failing to consider?
Infloops. If we don't catch the EPIPE, then our end of the pipe is
still open AFA XEmacs CT. "Heh heh heh Beavis, that was fun!" "Yeah
Butthead, let's do that again!"
I can imagine various scenario where this could happen. I think they're
unlikely, but I've made a note to do some checking.
mike
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches