On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:01:14PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> >> How about
> >>
> >>            die("BUG: another thread changed SIGPIPE handling behind my 
> >> back!");
> >>
> >> to make it easier to find and fix such problems?
> >
> > You mean for the "should never happen" bit, not the first part, right? I
> > actually wonder if we should simply exit(141) in the first place. That
> > is shell exit-code for SIGPIPE death already (so it's what our
> > run_command would show us, and what anybody running us through shell
> > would see).
> Yes, for the "should never happen" part.  Raising a signal is nice
> because it means the wait()-ing process can see what happened by
> checking WIFSIGNALED(status).

Right. My point is that only happens if there's no shell in the way. But
I guess it doesn't hurt to make the attempt to help the people using
wait() directly.

I don't mind adding a "BUG: " message like you described, but we should
still try to exit(141) as the backup, since that is the shell-equivalent
code to the SIGPIPE signal death.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to