[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).


>   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

>   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

well done in your debugging and analysis of the pipe behaviour between
1.18 and 1.19


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]