From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark H Weaver Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: Problem with netcat Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:36:22 -0400 Message-ID: <87ei588zc9.fsf@netris.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302573764 2677 80.91.229.12 (12 Apr 2011 02:02:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:02:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile mailing list , Detlev Zundel To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 12 04:02:40 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from [140.186.70.17] (helo=lists.gnu.org) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9SwC-0008T6-1i for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:02:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33985 helo=lists2.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9SwB-0002F0-JV for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:02:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9Shi-0003QD-Dc for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:48:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9L2Z-0001rm-02 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:36:44 -0400 Original-Received: from world.peace.net ([96.39.62.75]:51041) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9L2Y-0001qN-Tu for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:36:42 -0400 Original-Received: from 209-6-41-222.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com ([209.6.41.222] helo=freedomincluded) by world.peace.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9L2I-0008EN-1A; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:36:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mhw by freedomincluded with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9L2F-0000cd-0x; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:36:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Andy Wingo's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:14:25 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 96.39.62.75 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: no host name found for IP address 140.186.70.17 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:5453 Archived-At: Andy Wingo wrote: > I pushed a (sigaction SIGPIPE SIG_IGN) to (system repl repl), which > should fix the issue. Isn't this a bad idea? SIGPIPE generally indicates that something went wrong. If we ignore it, important problems may go unnoticed. To me, this seems kind of like ignoring SIGSEGV to get around a memory access to an unmapped area that would be inconvenient to prevent. Furthermore, what happens if a REPL is started within a Guile process that wants to install its own handler for SIGPIPE? Why is a pipe being created here, anyway? Why not just a socket? Best, Mark