[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH]
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH] |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 12:40:19 +0300 |
> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 11:32:00 +0200
> From: <address@hidden>
> CC: <address@hidden>, <address@hidden>
>
> > I'm drawing a line where the EXCEPTION_* values defined in winbase.h
> > header end. All the other values are AFAIK never triggered by fatal
> > exceptions that cause abnormal program termination.
>
> Yet the values live in the same namespace (in ntstatus.h) so are guaranteed
> no to collide.
Yes, the values of EXCEPTION_* are identical to the corresponding
STATUS_* values in ntstatus.h. But that doesn't mean they are the
same and will be seen in the same situations. The EXCEPTION_* values
are a small subset of the NTSTATUS values, and AFAIK only that subset
is generated by fatal exceptions that terminate programs.
> Anybody looking 0xC000014B up with a header grep or a google search will land
> on "pipe broken".
As I explained earlier, the issue is not with grepping Windows headers
(which end-users likely won't have installed), the issue is with other
programs that interpret these exit codes when invoking Gawk as a
sub-process. None of them know about the value you propose, while the
value I used _is_ known.
> So, "invalid handle" is simply not applicable at all.
I can only say that I disagree, and I explained why.
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], (continued)
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/08
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], Eli Zaretskii, 2017/04/08
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/08
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], Eli Zaretskii, 2017/04/08
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/08
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], Eli Zaretskii, 2017/04/08
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/08
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], Eli Zaretskii, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], arnold, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH],
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], Eli Zaretskii, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], Eli Zaretskii, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], Eli Zaretskii, 2017/04/09
- Re: [bug-gawk] Behavior of fflush with SIGPIPE on stdout [PATCH], alexandre.ferrieux, 2017/04/09