While it may be true that one or more systems have this "feature",
the script you have provided does not demonstrate that behavior.
(And, I am not aware of any system that does behave the way you
have described.)
Since a writer is blocked from writing into a FIFO if the FIFO is
not open for
The following issue has been UPDATED.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1124
==
Reported By:dannyniu
Assigned To:
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1124
==
Reported By:dannyniu
Assigned To:
Found it: http://man.cat-v.org/unix_8th/2/write
Should I file an editorial bug on the rationale section of the write()
interface, to note that some systems have this feature? Since we've already
mentioned the special case of making a zero-length write request.
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1122
==
Reported By:joerg
Assigned To:
2017-03-04 13:14:08 +, Danny Niu:
> Hi all.
>
> I couldn't remember where I saw it saying, that when reading
> from a pipe or a FIFO, the read syscall returns the content of
> at most one write call. It's a bit similar to the
> message-nondiscard semantics of dear old STREAM.
>
>
From: Danny Niu
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 22:43
To: Shware Systems
Subject: Re: I/O semantics of pipe and FIFO.
LSB deferred to SUSv4 on this, but I found Linux v4.09 manpage section 2 read
mentioning it might return less when
Hi all.
I couldn't remember where I saw it saying, that when reading from a pipe or a
FIFO, the read syscall returns the content of at most one write call. It's a
bit similar to the message-nondiscard semantics of dear old STREAM.
Currently, I'm reading through the text to find out a bit