tag 22195 notabug
close 22195
stop
On 18/12/15 03:22, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Eric Renouf wrote:
>> If a write to any successfully opened file operand fails
>
> But the write didn't fail here. Instead, a signal was sent to 'tee'. If you
> don't want the signal, trap it. E.g.:
>
> trap '' PIPE
>
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > trap '' PIPE
>
> Generally you don't want to ignore SIGPIPE.
> http://pixelbeat/programming/sigpipe_handling.html
> as then you have to deal with EPIPE from write():
I wanted to add emphasis to this. Ignoring SIGPIPE causes a cascade
of associated
When using tee with process substitution, if the process exits early it
will cause tee to get a SIGPIPE after trying to write to the closed named
pipe (per man 2 write). This causes tee to exit without finishing writing
to any additional files or processes, which seems to be a violation of the
On 12/18/2015 04:22 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Eric Renouf wrote:
>> If a write to any successfully opened file operand fails
>
> But the write didn't fail here. Instead, a signal was sent to 'tee'. If you
> don't want the signal, trap it. E.g.:
>
> trap '' PIPE
> for i in {1..300}; do
>
Eric Renouf wrote:
If a write to any successfully opened file operand fails
But the write didn't fail here. Instead, a signal was sent to 'tee'. If you
don't want the signal, trap it. E.g.:
trap '' PIPE
for i in {1..300}; do
echo "$i"
echo "$i" >&2
sleep 1
done | tee >(head -1 >
