Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> writes: > On 24/09/2026 22:18, Paul Eggert wrote: >> On 2026-09-24 07:52, Collin Funk wrote: >>> It has been a while since I looked at pipe-f2.sh, but I remember coming >>> to the conclusion that it was a NetBSD bug [1] >>> [1]https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2026-04/msg00129.html >> There do seem to be problems in that area. See NetBSD PR kern/57659 >> <https://gnats.netbsd.org/57659>, along with test cases added yesterday >> (!) trying to catch a similar bug with fifos and ptys, e.g., >> <https://github.com/NetBSD/src/commit/abad86f745946a5718e2b9c6559c7513f56edc01>. > > Interesting. I also see the following which seems like it might be related: > https://github.com/NetBSD/src/commit/b736ec86d > > I've not looked at those in detail, > but I suspect that may have regressed against the POSIX > requirement for fifos, that... > > “If no process has the pipe open for writing, read() shall return 0 to > indicate end-of-file.” > > I.e. the subsequent blocking after the first read() returning EOF should not > happen.
Yes, that was the conclusion that I came to a few months ago it seems [1]. Collin [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2026-04/msg00129.html
