[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: rc of built-in printf
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 07:00:12AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> This issue was brought up on the austin-group list (POSIX) by
> some doing testing in linux, with output from commands being sent
> to /dev/full (yes, a special file whose only purpose, as far as
> I can tell, is to return ENOSPC to any write request).
Yes, that's what /dev/full is for. It's surprisingly useful for
testing, especially in a world where full disks rarely happen but
silent data corruption when it does happen isn't really acceptable.
Though with one thing and another a very small tmpfs is probably more
> Anyway, in the next version, POSIX is planning on making it mandatory
> for lots of commands to check for write errors on stdout, and if found
> exit with a status indicating an error (which also mandates a message
> on stderr from almost all utilities).
> I don't much like this, but my arguments fell on deaf ears, so despite
> my misgivings, in current, both versions of both echo and printf (the
> builtin ones in /bin/sh and the ones in the filesystem) do check for
> errors and report them (and exit non-zero) if they happen.
> None of the many other utilities (built into sh, and otherwise) has been
> changed, except I think maybe the built-in pwd in sh (not sure if I did
> that one or not now) - pwd received a lot of attention because pwd was
> the command which (pwd >/dev/full) which started all of this.
Reporting ENOSPC (or EDQUOT) and such seems like a considerably
different mission from reporting EPIPE, which is noise... but it also
wouldn't surprise me to hear that they missed this point. :-|
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |