On 2/13/15 12:19 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I was expecting bash to handle SIGPIPE specially here,
as in this context it's informational rather than an indication of error.
I don't agree. It's a fatal signal whose default disposition is to
terminate a process, which is exactly what happens in
On 02/15/2015 01:48 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 2/13/15 12:19 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I was expecting bash to handle SIGPIPE specially here,
as in this context it's informational rather than an indication of error.
I don't agree. It's a fatal signal whose default disposition is to
terminate
On 15/02/15 21:59, Daniel Colascione wrote:
On 02/15/2015 01:48 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 2/13/15 12:19 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I was expecting bash to handle SIGPIPE specially here,
as in this context it's informational rather than an indication of error.
I don't agree. It's a fatal signal
