[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Groff] Re: pre-grohtml fails with SIGPIPE on command line invocation
From: |
Gaius Mulley |
Subject: |
[Groff] Re: pre-grohtml fails with SIGPIPE on command line invocation |
Date: |
08 Jan 2004 21:15:01 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 |
MARSHALL Keith <address@hidden> writes a very detailed
explanation: -)
> There are, I think, three options here:
>
> 1. Modify 'run_output_filter', so that SIGPIPE is ignored; (this is
> easy, but I am reluctant to do it, since I do not believe it to
> be the most appropriate action).
ok..
>
> 2. Declare that 'pre-grohtml' should *always* process 'stdin', and
> *never* files specified as command line arguments; modify the
> text displayed by the 'usage' function, and the parsing of
> command line arguments accordingly, such that 'pre-grohtml' will
> abort with a syntax error message, if file arguments are
> specified; (this is probably also fairly easy, but likely to
> require a bit more effort than 1).
indeed, I think this the most appropriate course of action as users
should never directly invoke pre-grohtml. All input files are
soelim'ed and piped into pre-grohtml (by groff), then the input is
buffered and sent to the postscript and html device drivers by
pre-grohtml.
>
> 3. Modify the operation of 'pre-grohtml', such that files specified
> on the command line are processed appropriately. Modification of
> the argument parsing code will also be required; at the very
> least, it will be necessary to eliminate such file names from the
> argument lists passed to 'do_image' and 'do_html'; (perhaps this
> should be the ultimate goal, but is likely to require
> significantly more effort than either 1 or 2).
>
> What do you think?
this could be done, but only if it makes sense to developers/debuggers
as this is the only audience I believe.. and then it is probably
easier to redirect an input file into the gdb debuggee for testing?
My preference would be to go for (2), but I do hope I've not missed
anything?
well done in your debugging and analysis of the pipe behaviour between
1.18 and 1.19
Gaius