Bug#52373: marked as done (GNU libc messages don't distinguish EPIPE and SIGPIPE)
Your message dated Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:32:17 +0900
with message-id <80r8c2w1da.wl@oris.opensource.jp>
and subject line Bug#52373: Wishlist bug?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Dec 1999 12:25:56 +0000
Received: (qmail 17041 invoked from network); 9 Dec 1999 12:25:56 -0000
Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (mail@195.224.76.132)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 9 Dec 1999 12:25:56 -0000
Received: from owend by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 2.05 #1)
id 11w2du-0005K2-00 (Debian); Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:25:54 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14415.40913.891405.322969@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 12:25:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: Owen Dunn <owend@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: GNU libc messages don't distinguish EPIPE and SIGPIPE
X-Mailer: VM 6.62 under Emacs 19.34.1
Package: libc6
Version: 2.1.2-1
GNU libc emits the same message ("Broken pipe" in the C locale) for
both EPIPE and SIGPIPE, but it would be useful if it distinguished
between the two.
(S)
--
`Beware the Subjects bird, and shred / The serious Bandwidth!'
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 52373-done) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Dec 2002 16:32:23 +0000
>From gotom@debian.or.jp Sat Dec 28 10:32:22 2002
Return-path: <gotom@debian.or.jp>
Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.gr.jp) [218.44.239.73] (postfix)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18SJss-0002em-00; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 10:32:22 -0600
Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.jp [218.44.239.73])
by oris.opensource.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 0D6B7C33C6; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:32:17 +0900 (JST)
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 01:32:17 +0900
Message-ID: <80r8c2w1da.wl@oris.opensource.jp>
From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>
To: "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx>, 52373-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#52373: Wishlist bug?
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20021227034014.GA21778@crystal>
References: <[🔎] 20021227034014.GA21778@crystal>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya)
FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2
(i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 52373-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.3 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,
USER_AGENT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
> GNU libc emits the same message ("Broken pipe" in the C locale) for
> both EPIPE and SIGPIPE, but it would be useful if it distinguished
> between the two.
At Thu, 26 Dec 2002 22:40:14 -0500,
H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:
> Should this bug be downgraded to wishlist? The bug submitter did say "it
> would be useful if ...". Moreover, according to glibc info docs:
>
> - Macro: int EPIPE
> Broken pipe; there is no process reading from the other end of a
> pipe. Every library function that returns this error code also
> generates a `SIGPIPE' signal; this signal terminates the program
> if not handled or blocked. Thus, your program will never actually
> see `EPIPE' unless it has handled or blocked `SIGPIPE'.
>
>
> So the two seems to be quite related to each other, and I don't see any
> compelling reason to distinguish between error messages generated by
> either one. Sounds very much like wishlist to me.
I agree.
SIGPIPE is one of signals, and EPIPE is one of error numbers. The
message "Broken pipe" is the result of SIGPIPE, and its error number.
I think there is no merit to distinguish them. Moreover, how to
change the message between the two? It's difficult.
So I think it's not bug, it's not wishlist item. I close this bug.
-- gotom
Reply to: