On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 02:06:37PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> > 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.
> If you want. :)
> I think caring about graceful degradation of behavior in the case of
> an assertion failure is overengineering, but it's mostly harmless.

I am more concerned that the assertion is not "oops, another thread is
doing something crazy, and it is a bug", but rather that there is some
weird platform where SIG_DFL does not kill the program under SIGPIPE.
That seems pretty crazy, though. I think I'd squash in something like

diff --git a/write_or_die.c b/write_or_die.c
index b50f99a..abb64db 100644
--- a/write_or_die.c
+++ b/write_or_die.c
@@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ static void check_pipe(int err)
        if (err == EPIPE) {
                signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_DFL);
                /* Should never happen, but just in case... */
+               error("BUG: SIGPIPE on SIG_DFL handler did not kill us.");

which more directly reports the assertion that failed, and degrades
reasonably gracefully. Yeah, it's probably overengineering, but it's
easy enough to do.

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